Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

Amendments agreed to.

To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the extent to which money from the private finance initiative will compensate for the reduction in capital finance originally undertaken for 1996–97. [34517]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): Private finance initiative replaces public capital where it offers better value and is a useful addition to any public capital provision.

Mr. Clapham: I am surprised by the Minister's answer because he did not refer to any figures. He must be well aware that the Home Secretary announced with a great fanfare that an extra £20 million would be available in revenue for extra police. By a sleight of hand, there was a £23 million cut in capital provision, compared with the total in the annual report. Can the Minister assure the House that private finance will make up for the £23 million cut in capital provision this year?

Mr. Sackville: We expect £151 million to be spent on capital contracts, most of them already agreed, in the current year. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that all Home Office funding for specific police building projects is being maintained this year. There have been no enforced cuts in major building programmes, but it is open to police authorities to enter into PFI contracts. I recently visited a police force that is making considerable progress down that road. There is no reason for police building in future not to take advantage of private finance.

Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend noticed the vendetta against the private finance initiative launched by Opposition Back Benchers? Is he aware that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)

claims to have invented the PFI and that the Leader of the Opposition claims to support it? Is not that another example of new Labour being out of touch with 80 per cent. of its Back Benchers?

Mr. Sackville: It is significant that we have received no complaints about the PFI from Labour Front Benchers recently. Opposition Members who have cast aspersions on the initiative, locally or otherwise, are totally out of touch with their own party.

Juvenile Crime

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he is planning to tackle juvenile crime; and if he will make a statement. [34518]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The Government continue to take firm action to tackle juvenile crime and its causes. In particular, we have strengthened the courts' powers to give young offenders custodial sentences where they commit serious crimes or offend persistently; we have given the police the power to attach stricter conditions to bail; we are proposing to give the police new powers to seize alcohol from young people drinking in public and to destroy it; and we have set up a ministerial group on juveniles, which is working to ensure that all relevant Departments and Government agencies, together with local government and voluntary agencies, co-ordinate their efforts—so as to target children who are at greatest risk of offending and to maximise the efforts made to steer them away from a life of crime.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply and all the measures that he is taking. Does he agree that if juveniles are set on a life of crime, that will prove disastrous for the rest of their lives and for their families? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that if juveniles receive moral and spiritual teaching, that will assist them to move away from crime? Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all that he can to provide such education, as well as preventing juveniles from reoffending if they commit a crime for any reason?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose points go far beyond the criminal justice system. Greater emphasis must be placed on the part that teachers and parents can play in educating children in the difference between right and wrong. The greater the emphasis placed on that matter in children's formative years, the less prospect there will be of them becoming career criminals later in life.

Mr. Straw: I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said. But is the Secretary of State aware that, so great has been the Government's failure over 17 years to tackle juvenile crime, there are countless examples across the country of persistent young offenders who wait for months—in some cases for more than a year—before being punished? Meanwhile, they offend again and again before their cases get to court. Why are these delays continually becoming worse? Does not the Government's inability to tackle youth crime contrast starkly with Labour's proposals to


reform the youth justice system, and particularly with our pledge to halve the time that it takes to bring serious young criminals to justice?

Mr. Howard: The pledge might be just a trifle more impressive if the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers gave the slightest indication of how the pledge is to be maintained—but it does not deal with that at all. What we have seen from the Labour party is a series of attempts to undermine all the measures that we have taken. It has attempted to wreck the steps that we have taken to give police the power to attach conditions to bail, and it has sought to make it impossible for secure accommodation to be made available for young offenders, with Labour-controlled local authorities consistently refusing to provide such accommodation. What we get from the hon. Gentleman is a conspicuous example of the new dangers that new Labour brings.

Drugs (Prisons)

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to combat the use of drugs in prisons. [34519]

Mr. Howard: Since last April we have introduced mandatory drug testing in all prison establishments. All establishments have also produced local strategies for reducing the supply of and the demand for drugs.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. How successful has that policy been? Does he recall that he received no support in voting for those measures from the Labour party or from the Liberal party? They tried to say one thing in the media but failed to support the policies in the House. Will he confirm that it is absolutely essential that we clean out drugs from our prisons, because a prisoner coming out who is dependent on drugs almost certainly will go back to a life of crime?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it is too early in the mandatory drug testing programme to be definitive about its success, although the latest figures for those testing positive—at 27.6 per cent., which, of course, is still far too high—show a welcome reduction on the 37 per cent. who tested positive in the first month of the introduction of the programme in February last year. Although there is more to be done, the signs are encouraging.

Mr. Bermingham: Can the Home Secretary please tell me how he can reconcile, first, an expected expansion of 7,000 in the total prison population by April next year; secondly, an expected 1,200 reduction in the number of prison officers because of the 5 per cent. to 13 per cent. cuts; and, thirdly, a total freeze on recruitment in the Prison Service? When he is reducing the numbers of officers and increasing the numbers of prisoners, how can he ever have an effective drug policy—unless he introduces drug-free wings in prisons, and perhaps uses specialists who can begin to educated prisoners away from the drug habit?

Mr. Howard: We are doing both of the things that the hon. Gentleman suggests. In particular, a significant increase is under way in the number of prisons in which

drug treatment programmes are available. The hon. Gentleman is quite right and I entirely accept that, in addition to mandatory drug testing, we need more treatment available in our prisons. That is exactly what we are providing.

Dame Jill Knight: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the largest proportion of drugs going into prisons come from visitors visiting inmates? Does he accept that there is a very real need to stop that, particularly by stopping visitors and inmates touching, which is so often how drugs are passed?

Mr. Howard: I agree with a good deal of what my hon. Friend says. In particular, we are introducing on a pilot basis closed visits for those who have been found to be in possession of drugs who are suspected of having had those drugs passed to them through visiting, in precisely the way that my hon. Friend has suggests. We are determined to do all that we can to root out the disgraceful state of affairs in which drugs are taken in our prisons, and closed visits may have an important part to play in achieving that objective.

Drug Trafficking

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources he will provide to combat drug trafficking in city and urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [34520]

Mr. Sackville: The Government are currently spending more than half a billion pounds a year directly on the fight against drugs.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the launch of the West Yorkshire police community forum, in which a number of very busy people in West Yorkshire are coming together to try to combat crime, drug and alcohol abuse and the causes of crime? The survey of the regions carried out by the Government revealed that West Yorkshire has real social problems. The launch of the police community trust has been spearheaded by the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Keith Hellawell, who is calling for local business people to provide £1 million to help to resource the forum. Will the Minister press the Home Secretary to make a contribution to that £1 million, or even to fund pound for pound the sum that is being subscribed by local people? We need help with the forum.

Mr. Sackville: Drugs are a huge and dire problem everywhere in this country, but in West Yorkshire people have the advantage that the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers drug committee, Chief Constable Keith Hellawell, is providing a model for what should happen elsewhere. As for funding, I remind the hon. Gentleman that West Yorkshire police will receive an extra £11 million in available spending this year. How that money is deployed must remain a decision principally for the chief constable and the authority. None the less, I commend the drug forum and Chief Constable Hellawell for what they are doing. It is exactly what is required to back up enforcement with proper drug prevention. In the end, that is the only way in which we shall beat drugs.

Mr. Elletson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the significant reductions in drug trafficking in the urban council housing estates that are run by the tenants under the Government's right-to-manage scheme? Will he take the opportunity to condemn Labour-controlled local authorities such as Blackpool borough council whichcontinue, by the most underhand means, to deny their tenants the right to manage?

Mr. Sackville: I accept what my hon. Friend says, because I am very aware that the best way to ruin a council estate, or any other estate, is to allow drug dealers to operate within it. Tenants can take decisions; they know who the drug dealers are and they can bring pressure to bear. That is the best way to protect children on those estates.

Mr. Flynn: The Home Secretary has just described the situation in our gaols, after 17 years of Conservative Government, as "disgraceful". In the two gaols that serve my area, Cardiff and Swansea, it has been discovered that 50 per cent.—that is, half the prisoners—are on drugs. Drug use is endemic in every prison in Britain, and if we cannot keep drugs out of our prisons, how on earth do we expect to keep them out of schools, clubs, pubs and raves?

Mr. Sackville: It is a matter of great distress to everyone connected with prisons that many people take up drugs as a result of being in prison. I agree that that is entirely unacceptable. But thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is responsible for prisons, considerable progress has been made in the past two years. If the hon. Gentleman goes to see some of the prisons with drug-free wings and drug programmes, he will find people who are coming off drugs in prison who would not have had the chance to do that outside. That should be applauded, and the more encouragement that can be given to the Prison Service to allocate resources for more drug-free wings, the better.

Prisoner Escapes

Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the incidence of escapes from Her Majesty's prisons and from prison escorts since April 1993. [34521]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The percentage reduction from the financial year 1992–93 until the financial year 1995–96 is 79 per cent.
The number of escapes from establishments has fallen from 232 to 52, and the number of escapes from escort has fallen from 115 to 36 over the same period.
I congratulate the Prison Service on this considerable achievement.

Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House for the entire Prison Service? Is it not justification for the policy of contracting out services therein; and is that not yet another way in which prison works, because according to a secret document that has come into my hands, a copy of which should be placed in the Library, new Labour believes that the Tory policy of prison works is an absurdity?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is also right to draw attention to the operation of private escorts. It is a fact that much of the reduction in the rate of escapes from escort is due to the privatisation of escort services. In the first year of operation, in the initial area contracted-out, there was a reduction of 45 per cent.; in the second year, 71 per cent.; and in the third year a further improvement resulted in a final reduction of 82 per cent. My hon. Friend is also quite right to point to the absurdity of the Labour party's position: that prison does not work. If it does not work, at the same time as we have a rise in the prison population, why do we have a fall in the rate of crime? Why is the rate of reconviction better for prisons than it is for community services? Is not it a fact that every single time we have become tough on law and order, that has been opposed by the Labour party? Will it now admit at last that it was wrong?

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister tell the House why the Government have been so lacking in openness about the cost and feasibility of implementing the Learmont proposals on prison security? Will she also tell the House how, if the Government are not prepared for that implementation, we can believe anything that they say about paying the price of building new prisons for their sentencing proposals?

Miss Widdecombe: I made it extremely clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he asked me about our response to the Learmont report, in a written answer, which he has now had plenty of time to read and study, that we will, in due course, produce our response to the Learmont report. At such time as we produce that response, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have no reason to complain of any lack of openness. All there is at the moment is a lack of patience. I suggest that he learns a bit more patience.

Mr. John Greenway: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) about the lack of prison places, would it not be sensible to rethink the £2 billion price tag to implement Learmont—if that is the figure, as has been trailed today—and look at spending capital resources on creating more prison places, and in the process of doing so ensure that we build into those prisons at the design stage all the features that will prevent escapes? As my hon. Friend rightly said, the crisis is likely to be prison places, not escapes, because the Prison Service has, as she has said, reduced the number of escapes from prisons by a very substantial amount.

Miss Widdecombe: Not only have we reduced the number of escapes, but precisely because we have concentrated on supplying prison places we have rectified much of the abysmal situation that we inherited from the Labour party. The Labour party saw a rise in the prison population of 15 per cent., to which its response was to cut its capital programme by 20 per cent. By contrast, we have built 22 new prisons. We have eliminated the practice of trebling. We have eliminated the use of police cells. We have reduced the percentage of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one. We have done all that because of our determination to get the number of prison places right. The Opposition should admire us and congratulate us, but I have a feeling that they will not.

Mr. Straw: I congratulate the Minister on her preparations for Opposition, but she will have to do rather better than she has in this Question Time.
On the crisis in the Prison Service, to which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred, can the Minister confirm that, while prison numbers are rising by more than 300 a month, the Secretary of State is cutting the Prison Service budget by more than £6 million a month, every month, for the next three years? Instead of wriggling and prevaricating, will she admit that, in the Home Office annual report, the Secretary of State promised that a report on Learmont's cost implications would be tabled in spring this year? Where is that report? How much will the Learmont recommendations—that will cost new money—come to in total? How many of them will the Secretary of State accept?

Miss Widdecombe: I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my previous response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Since the Opposition are calling for the answer, they shall have it again. We shall produce our response to the Learmont report in due course. When we produce that response, we shall give no grounds for any complaints about openness. That is what I said and I am sorry that the Opposition could not understand it the first time. Now that I have painstakingly repeated it, I presume that they can understand it the second time.
There is a very simple answer to hon. Gentleman's question about the rise in the prison population: the reductions are in budget restraints. If he conducts a study, he will find that the prison population has been rising constantly since 1993. He will also find that, during that period, we have reduced the cost per prisoner place, and have managed to combine that rise and that reduction with more purposeful activity, more refurbishment, more high secure places, and all the things that the Opposition do not want to hear. We have managed to do that through efficiency savings, and that is what we shall continue to do—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Life Sentences

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Taylor on the imposition of mandatory life sentences on those convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time; and if he will make a statement. [34523]

Mr. Howard: Those who repeat serious violent or sexual offences should not be released until it is safe to do so. Our proposals for an automatic life sentence will achieve that objective.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. When will he start listening to senior members of the judiciary, such as Lord Chief Justice Taylor, Lord Donaldson, Lord Justice Rose, and so on, who take the view that the imposition of a mandatory life sentence on rapists is foolish and very dangerous? It will give the rapist an incentive to kill the victim because, at the end of the day, he will get the same sentence. With respect,

I would have thought that, bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's appalling record in the courts over the past 12 months, it is high time that he started listening to the judges.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman took that argument to its logical conclusion, he would be against all life sentences of imprisonment. I am not. I think that life sentences of imprisonment have an important part to play because they impose a risk assessment before someone who has committed a serious sexual or violent offence is released to be a danger to the public again. I am not prepared to defend a situation in which 217 offenders committed a second serious sexual or violent offence in 1994. Only 10 of them were given life sentences, which meant that they were subject to a risk assessment before they were released to be a further risk to the public. I put the protection of the public at the top of my agenda. I hope that all of us who are in positions of responsibility accept that.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one reason why his standing and credibility has gone up is that he has listened not to the judges but to the public and my constituents? Does he agree that people who are convicted of serious sexual offences should be properly monitored after their first offence and when they are released? What steps are being taken?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the proposals in the White Paper is for extended supervision of sex offenders, and that goes directly to the point that he raised. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) should pay attention to the views of police officers, as well as to those of the public. The police must deal with serious, violent and persistent criminals at the sharp end of life on our streets, day in, day out and night in, night out, and their opinion on the matter is worthy of special respect.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Home Secretary aware that the two murderers of the late Daniel Handley were second-time offenders? Is he further aware that Daniel Handley and his family were constituents of mine? Can he confirm that his Department is responsible for the national criminal intelligence service? In view of press reports and my correspondence with the Minister of State, will he say categorically whether that service did or did not play an efficient, effective and timely role in the apprehension of those two murderers?

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I had no prior notice of that question and I have not seen the whole of his correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am sure that she has looked into the matter, and has given him as full a response as possible.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that extended supervision of released violent offenders is long overdue? Does he further agree that the distress and tragedy of a victim of a serious violent and sexual assault is exacerbated by the knowledge that a first offender has been released to commit an identical crime the second time around? Will he please continue to listen to the public and not to the judges?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend about the great distress caused to victims in these circumstances. That is one of the reasons behind my proposals for honest sentencing, and also for extended supervision of sex offenders.

Prisons (Ministerial Visits)

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the purposes of ministerial visits to prisons. [34525]

Miss Widdecombe: I visit prisons to see for myself what is happening at individual establishments and to talk to staff, to prisoners and to members of boards of visitors about matters of concern to them. It is a particularly important part of my role as Prisons Minister and I have so far visited 70 prisons.

Dr. Jones: What action did the Minister take following her visit to Holloway prison on 27 July last year? Was not her visit well in advance of the decision in December by the chief inspector of prisons to pull out his team because of the appalling conditions he found there? Does she consider that she misled the House on 28 March this year by denying that she had visited the prison six months before the start of the inspection, while conveniently omitting to mention that she had been there more than four months before?

Miss Widdecombe: The answer to the second part of the hon. Lady's question is simple. She asked whether I had visited the prison six months earlier, but the hon. Lady could not add up—I therefore pointed out that she had got it wrong. I am sorry that she could not add up. As for what I did when I went to Holloway, it is on the record that I drew my concerns to the attention of the Prison Service, and it is equally on the record that the Prison Service put in an extra £300,000 in October of that year to combat the problems at the prison.

Mr. Amess: Does my hon. Friend agree that our recent visit to Chelmsford prison was extremely valuable, as we saw at first hand that prison does act as a deterrent and that Chelmsford is an extremely well-run prison?

Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate Chelmsford prison on its many achievements, and I confirm what my hon. Friend says. It is a well-run prison, and there was much in it that impressed me.

Mr. George Howarth: On the subject of ministerial visits to prisons, when the Minister visited Parkhurst prison several months ago—as I did yesterday—did she look at the special secure unit on which more than £3 million has been spent? Did she also see the additional security measures installed there that have cost many millions of pounds more? Is she aware that no prisoner has ever spent a night in that special secure unit? Is she further aware that the additional security measures are far in excess of the need for the security classification of the prison, because the Home Office and Ministers reduced its security categorisation from A to B?
Is she not ashamed to have wasted so much taxpayers' money on security measures that are no longer necessary for that prison? Why does she not reconsider the matter and raise its classification back up to security A?

Miss Widdecombe: Just now, the Opposition were complaining that we had not responded to General Learmont's report. We removed Parkhurst from the dispersal system in direct response to a major recommendation in General Learmont's considered report. His reasoning for removing the prison was rather more considered than that just shown by the hon. Gentleman.

Home Beat Policing (Bromley)

Sir John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the current level of home beat policing in the London borough of Bromley. [34526]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that all areas of Bromley are covered by home beat officers—and that the number of police officers on duty in the borough has been rising since January this year.

Sir John Hunt: If my hon. Friend agrees, as I hope he does, that a bobby on the beat represents a strong deterrent to crime as well as giving great encouragement to the general public, can he give a firm undertaking that the recent police restructuring in Bromley will not lead to any diminution in home beat cover?

Mr. Kirkhope: In Bromley, there is great concern that the police presence should be as near the public as possible in the community. That is why there are now 19 home beat officers, plus 25 officers attached to dedicated sector teams in the community and eight attached to the town centre unit. It is the intention in Bromley to meet the target of 481 officers overall long before March 1997, which was the original date intended. The police expect to reach that target by September this year.

Under-age Drinking

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he is taking to curb under-age drinking; and if he will make a statement. [34527]

Mr. Kirkhope: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I believe that more effective measures are needed to prevent under-age drinking in public places. When there is a suitable legislative opportunity, we propose giving the police a new power to confiscate alcohol from under-age people drinking in public. That would give the police the means to deal with the problem immediately and at source.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for that commitment. I draw to his attention the fact that it will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, where alcohol


abuse by youngsters under the drinking age is a cause of constant aggravation. Can he assure me once again that there will be early legislation on that matter?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In doing so, I congratulate him on the way in which he has campaigned vigorously for a change in the law. Only a few days ago, at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting, my hon. Friend once again referred to the matter. We do not quite know the vehicle that could be used—perhaps a private Member's Bill would be the most appropriate—but we are keen to see that change in the law, because it will have an impact on what is undoubtedly a considerable nuisance.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister acknowledge that the promise of action to tackle the possession of alcohol by young people follows the initiative taken by Labour-controlled Coventry city council to limit drinking on the streets? Will he also consider stiffer penalties for those who sell alcohol to under-age young people, to ensure that action is taken on the issue and that we do not just have words? Given that the Minister has had legislative opportunities coming out of his ears with the number of Bills that the Home Office has introduced in recent years, does he accept that he would have the co-operation of the Opposition if he were positive about bringing forward legislation at an early date?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am almost gobsmacked by an offer from the Opposition to support Government measures to bring about greater law enforcement—it is rare for them to do so, but I welcome it. Perhaps in the meantime, I might tell those local authorities that are concerned with the problem, as Conservative Members are, that they now have the ability to take action under byelaws if they so wish. Although prosecutions of those who sell alcohol to underage people continue, the number of such offences, I am glad to say, has been dropping in the past few years.

Police Information

12. Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to hold discussions on sharing of police information with the United States Secretary of the Interior. [34528]

Mr. Howard: We co-operate closely with the United States in tackling organised and international crime at both governmental and operational levels. Sharing police information on this and wider policing issues will be an important subject of discussion during my visit to the United States later this month when I shall meet the US Attorney-General, who is responsible for policing matters.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and wish him well on his important forthcoming visit. Will he confirm that the experience of senior US officials has been that police intelligence information sharing and anticipatory surveillance are more important than the outward appearances of phenomena such as border guards? Will their interest in Europol be confirmed by his enthusiasm now for the Europol arrangements, after recent hesitations?

Mr. Howard: There has been no hesitation on our part on Europol. I fully expect that we shall be among the first countries to ratify the Europol convention. On intelligence in relation to border controls, we need the benefits of intelligence but we also need border controls. That is why we have said that we have every intention of maintaining our existing system of frontier controls.

Mr. Pope: Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the News of the World on exposing the growth in Britain of the Ku Klux Klan, which is controlled from bases in the United States? Will he hold urgent talks with his opposite number in the United States to try to eradicate the growth of that evil and odious organisation in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howard: I am not sure that the United States Attorney-General will be able to assist to any great extent in that matter. The agenda for my discussions with her has not yet been formalised, but I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in his discussions with his opposite number in the United States, place a high priority on how best we can control child pornography in media such as the Internet? Does he believe that that is a vital subject, that we must protect our children and that ways must be found for our two countries, and other countries, to co-operate to cut the number of paedophiles?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows the high importance that I attach to that subject. She also knows that we have already been able to convict people in Britain who have been using the Internet for the transmission of pornography, including child pornography. The police will remain vigilant so that those who use the Internet for that evil purpose can be brought to justice.

Firefighters (Diabetes)

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the firefighters unions about the regulations regarding diabetes. [34529]

Mr. Sackville: Guidance to chief fire officers on the employment of diabetics in the fire service was issued in February 1995. There have been no recent discussions with firefighters unions on this issue.

Mr. Pickthall: Does the Minister think that it is sensible or just that firefighters who become insulin dependent are invariably dismissed from front-line services? Should not such decisions be made on the ground of individuals' medical records, not under a blanket policy that is based on ignorance?

Mr. Sackville: Perhaps I can correct the hon. Gentleman. Until recently, there was a blanket ban on insulin-dependent diabetics serving in the fire service. Last year, it was decided that each case should be taken on its merits. For that reason, the joint working party on medical and physical standards has ruled that, if people who develop diabetes during their service pass certain standards of


fitness and control of their diabetes, they can remain in the service. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been recent judgments by appeal panels to that effect.

Dorset Police Authority

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage increase in resources to the Dorset police authority for the current year. [34531]

Mr. Kirkhope: The Dorset police authority's spending power for 1996–97 will be 6.2 per cent. more than last year, an increase well above the national average.

Mr. Atkinson: On behalf of my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for that real increase in the resources of the Dorset police this year. Will he confirm that, since 1979, under the Conservatives, spending on Dorset police has increased by 112 per cent. in real terms and that the number of police officers and civilian support staff has increased by 467, as a result of which crime is coming down in Dorset? Can he say by how many he expects the number of police officers in Dorset to increase in the next three years?

Mr. Kirkhope: I agree entirely with the statistics that my hon. Friend has just put to the House. Crime is coming down in Dorset. Spending is going up in Dorset. Police pay has gone up in Dorset. Indeed, the spending power of Dorset has increased dramatically. On top of that, Dorset is one of the beneficiaries of our closed circuit television challenge competition and has done extremely well out of it. That will help to curb crime even further in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July. [34546]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, in the next two or three days, Members of Parliament and Ministers will be voting to set a new and increased national minimum wage for Members of Parliament and Ministers? If it is good enough for them, why can we not have a national minimum wage for everyone else? If those increases go beyond the pay barrier, will the Government give a guarantee that workers, including nurses and others, and pensioners will all receive the same?

The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman carried every Opposition Member with him with that particular remark.
The point about a minimum wage, of course, is the impact that it would have on the capacity to employ people. That is the point that we have repeatedly made. That is one of the reasons why unemployment is falling

in this country, whereas it is rising in other countries. We intend to continue to see a downward trend in unemployment, which is why we do not favour the policies that the hon. Gentleman advocates.
As for the report that will be published this afternoon, let me say first to the hon. Gentleman that it is worth remembering precisely why the review was set up. It was for two reasons essentially: first, it was necessary to devise a new formula for determining Members' pay as the old one had broken down and, secondly, 300 Members of the House, of whom 200 were Labour Members, had called for such a review—not the hon. Gentleman, I concede that—in a motion before the House.
Following the consultation that I have had with leaders of other political parties, it is clear that they do not wish to express a view and that they believe that it is a matter for the House as a whole to decide. The Cabinet decided this morning to offer the House an opportunity to vote for the recommendations as they stood, but the Government will be recommending and also voting for restraint.

Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence exports earn this country billions of pounds every year and guarantee thousands of jobs in Lancashire and elsewhere? Is it not, therefore, an absolute disgrace that Labour Members now oppose the sale of British defence equipment to Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and, some of them, even to the world's largest democracy, India? Does not that show that workers in the defence industry face a real danger from the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: Defence is a very important industry in this country and one that plays a very important part in our economy, both in export earnings and, of course, in job provision in many parts of the country—the north-west, the west country and many parts of the home counties as well—so it is extremely important. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the policies of the Labour party. It is also right for the House to note that the further defence review promised by the Labour party promises to cut sufficient from the funds to ensure that there would be no money at all for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Blair: Are this morning's newspaper reports correct that the selective slaughter scheme for beef is now to amount to 120,000 cows, which is a higher figure than previously thought, and that an additional £100 million, £200 million or possibly more will have to be paid in compensation on top of the £2 billion that the Prime Minister has already mentioned? Are those reports correct?

The Prime Minister: It is not possible to be entirely clear precisely how many animals will be slaughtered. What is clear is what was set out in the 30-months-plus scheme, with which I think the right hon. Gentleman is familiar. Beyond that, we are asked from time to time to make estimates of precisely what the figures are, and an estimate of about 120,000 is the best that we can make—that figure has been around for some considerable time. The cost is the cost that we have set out on previous occasions.

Mr. Blair: I think it is clear that the number is to be greater than originally anticipated. When the Prime Minister made his statement to the House earlier, he suggested that the reports of additional slaughter schemes


were incorrect. Will he confirm whether, as a result of the Florence summit and the statement from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night, the 1989 to 1990 cohort is to be included in the selective slaughter scheme, which will increase the number of cows involved? Last night, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food apparently said that it would take six to nine months for the scheme to be implemented. Does the Prime Minister still hold to November of this year as the date by which the ban will be completely lifted?

The Prime Minister: Yes; on the information we have, we still hold to the dates that we set out, but, as I said at the time, those dates depend on our meeting the requirements, which I previously set before the House and which we believe we can meet in the time scale that I set out. Long before I went to Florence, there was a lot of discussion about the 1989 to 1990 cohort involving both my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture and me. There is a distinction between the compulsory slaughter and the voluntary scheme that exists for the 1989 to 1990 cohort—it has to be voluntary, because there is no means of determining precisely which animals would qualify for it.

Mr. Blair: With due respect to the Prime Minister, the Agriculture Minister had said that the 1989 to 1990 cohort was not to be included and it is now clear that it is. The Agriculture Minister now says that the lifting of the ban may or may not take place at the end of the year. As more details emerge, is it not clear that the costs will be greater, the number of cattle slaughtered will be higher and the time scale will be longer—those prices are all to be paid by the British people?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight of the two fundamental reasons why the policy is necessary. The first is to ensure public health—a point that has not crossed his lips at any stage of the questions that he has bothered to ask me on the subject. The second reason is to ensure that the British beef industry will be able to recover and recapture the markets around the world for prime British beef. That is the point at stake: the livelihoods of 650,000 people. It would be helpful if, for once, instead of the pedantry that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, he acknowledged, first, the need to deal with the matter in the interests of the beef industry and, secondly, the need to deal with it in the interests of public health.

Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will never introduce a policy which, as the price of a sell-out to Scottish nationalism, would bring in the compulsory dismemberment of England into regions? That latter policy would be purely to justify the continued presence of Scottish Members of Parliament in the House. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that such a policy would set in trend a series of developments that would be bad for the cohesion of England, bad for Scotland and bad for a Union that has served our people so well?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks for millions of people in every part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The dangers that arise from the Opposition's policies are self-evident and many people are beginning to see them. [Interruption.] Why are the significant questions not answered? If Scotland has its

own Parliament, why should there be continued over-representation of Scottish Members in the House? What about the position of hon. Members who represent Scotland? If they determine some issues in a Scottish Parliament, by what logic or equity should they vote for those matters as far as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland? If the Labour party has no interest in introducing new taxes, as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says, why is he having a referendum to try to approve them in Scotland?

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July. [34547]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Prime Minister fully realise how much the Labour party in Scotland looks forward to his visit? Will he today, or at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Dumfries tomorrow, answer my question, which his deputy dodged last Thursday? Why is it all right to offer Northern Ireland devolution, with a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and no reduction in the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster, while denying the same to the people of Scotland? How does he justify treating the two countries so differently?

The Prime Minister: How does the hon. Gentleman justify tax raising in Scotland and not in Wales? That is the distinction to which the hon. Gentleman must bend his mind. If he cares to read the speech that I made a week ago—I shall send him a copy—he will see in detail a series of reasons why there is a clear distinction between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman had better bend his mind to his own policy: why a tax-raising power in Scotland but a non-tax-raising assembly in Wales? What has he got against the Scots, and why not not he trust the Welsh?

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July. [34549]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm his commitment to the assisted places scheme and to doubling it? Does he agree that, if the scheme were abolished, those children would still have to be educated in the state system, thus producing a small net saving? Does not that simple piece of arithmetic demolish the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy to abolish the scheme and spend the money in the primary sector?

The Prime Minister: I fear that some of the figures issued by the shadow Chancellor this morning are shown to be wholly wrong, even on cursory examination. It was already clear before today that the windfall tax is unravelling before the Opposition's eyes, and it certainly could not pay for the new pledges that they make. Sadly, the shadow Chancellor seems to have got his sums wrong. He has inflated the amount that he hopes to raise by forgetting to include the cost of sending the children who


were in assisted places schemes back to the state sector. It can be seen simply from a cursory glance at the Opposition's new plans that the sums do not add up. The new Labour party's policies mean new taxes: taxes in Scotland; taxes on people with children aged between 16 and 18 who would lose child benefit; taxes for living in London; and taxes on jobs, with the social chapter and a minimum wage. That is what is offered by the Labour party. No wonder we talk of new dangers.

Mr. Hoon: The Prime Minister has rightly condemned those who oppose the rule of law and those who fail to follow the courts' decisions. Will he unequivocally condemn Governments who refuse to implement, or threaten to refuse to implement, the European Court of Justice's decisions?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government implement the regulations. Where we think they are wrong—in some cases we do—we shall raise the matter at the intergovernmental conference to change the underlying European Community law. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so keen on ensuring that the law is obeyed. I hope that, in the interests of providing good, strong law enforcement, he will now apologise for the number of occasions on which he and his colleagues voted against law enforcement measures introduced by the Government.

Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July. [34550]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Lincolnshire constituency, those who work in the seaside resorts and on the land are in the habit of working far more than 48 hours a week during the summer, although often less in the winter? If the Brussels Commission is to impose its directive limiting the number of working hours to 48 hours a week with effect from 23 November, will that not seriously reduce the standard of living of many of my constituents? If the European Court of Justice seeks to overturn that part of the social chapter from which we have opted out, will my right hon. Friend take steps to reassert it?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has neatly picked up the point to which I alluded in response to the previous question, which was asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). I share my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of his constituents.
The European Court has not yet given its final judgment on our challenge to the working time directive—although the Advocate General's opinion was not encouraging. If we lose in that judgment, we shall seek treaty change at the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the social protocol is not undermined by presenting social measures in the guise of health and safety.
I reached an agreement on ensuring that we were not covered by that at Maastricht, and I intend that that agreement shall be kept. Our colleagues in Europe need not expect that we will reach further agreements at the next intergovernmental conference unless, at that conference, they are prepared to restore the agreement that I reached at Maastricht. It specifically deals with the matter referred to by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Salmond: The Prime Minister is coming to Dumfries tomorrow to speak at the Burns supper and to celebrate the bicentennial of Scotland's national bard. Is he aware that the lines that he has twice quoted in the House from "The Dumfries Volunteers" were written when Burns was under investigation by the Government of one of his predecessors for sedition as a radical and a Scottish nationalist? Will the Prime Minister demonstrate his knowledge of all things Scottish—stretching from stones to poems—and remind the House of the first two lines of Burns' most famous poem "Tam o'Shanter"?

The Prime Minister: I have no intention of regaling the House with poetry. I enjoyed listening to "Tam o'Shanter" last time I attended a Burns supper—and, with a bit of luck, I will hear it again tomorrow night. Rabbie Burns had a varied political career during his lifetime. As the hon. Gentleman would know, Burns' political career was varied as to where he gave his affections—and they were not affections that the hon. Gentleman would follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Assent

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Treasure Act 1996
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
Offensive Weapons Act 1996
Family Law Act 1996
Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1996
Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996
Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996
Defamation Act 1996
Trading Schemes Act 1996
University College London Act 1996

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Remaining stages of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order and the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 9 JULY—Opposition Day [18th allotted day]. Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate on water metering; followed by a debate on the promotion of family-friendly employment. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motions relating to the occupational pension schemes regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 10 JULY—Until two o'clock, there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Motions on Members' pay and allowances.
Motion on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order.
THURSDAY 11 JULY—Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate on the White Paper on development and training for civil servants, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on parliamentary procedure, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 15 JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motions on the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order and the Local Authorities (Contracting out of Investment Functions) Order.
TUESDAY 16 JULY—Opposition Day [19th allotted day]. On a motion yet to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 17 JULY—Until two o'clock, debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, the summer economic debate on a Government motion.
THURSDAY 18 JULY—Estimates Day [3rd Allotted Day]. A debate on British forces in Bosnia, followed by a debate on housing need. Details of the estimates will be given in the Official Report. At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 19 JULY—a debate on science policy and human genetics on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 10 July there will be a debate on Maritime Policy in European Standing Committee A and

a debate on the EC Budget and the financial perspective in European Standing Committee B. On Wednesday 17 July there will be a debate on methods of trapping wild animals in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 10 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 6813/96; Maritime Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xxi (1995–96); European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: (a) COM(96)300; EC Preliminary Draft Budget for 1997, (b) 6431/96 + COR 1; Financial Perspective. Relevant European Committee Reports: a) HC 51-xxiii (1995–96), b) HC 51-xix (1995–96) and HC 51-xxii (1995–96).
Wednesday 17 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 4198/96; Wild Animals: Trapping Methods. Relevant European Comtnittee Report: HC 51-viii (1995–96) ]
Tuesday 9 July—Occupational pension schemes regulations: the relevant regulations are as follows: Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996; Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) regulations 1996; Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to Obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996; Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-Nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (SI No 1216)]
Thursday 18 July—Estimates Day [3rd Allotted Day]: Class 1, vote 1, Defence: Operational and support costs: in so far as it relates to British Forces in Bosnia; relevant report: fifth report from the Defence Committee, Session 1995–96, (HC 423), British Forces in Bosnia; class VI, vote 1, Housing and Construction, England, in so far as it relates to housing need; relevant report: second report from the Environment Committee, Session 1995–96, (HC 22), Housing Need, and the Government's reply (CM 3259)

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information and, in particular, for agreeing to the debate on procedure next Thursday, for which we have been asking for some time. We are near the recess and I do not wish to overburden the Leader of the House with requests for debates, but I shall press him on some significant issues so that the Government can find time for a statement or a debate before the summer recess. One such topic was not covered properly at Home Office questions today. In light of the new information given by the director of the Prison Service today on projected increases in the prison population and the related security implications, which have been highlighted by Learmont, will the House have an opportunity to have a full debate on the issue before the summer recess? We need a proper debate, not just the excited answers that we got from the Minister of State this afternoon.
The Leader of the House will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had an important Adjournment debate on holiday airline safety yesterday. My hon. Friend has received further information, following the speech by the Minister for Transport in London yesterday, which shows that the system of licensing that the Minister said was impossible already exists in some parts of the world—for example,


Australia. As the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House yesterday and as further concerns about holiday safety have been expressed in a Which? report today, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement or a future debate so that the record can be corrected and the concerns of holidaymakers addressed?
The Leader of the House may recall that the Department of Health announced a consultation exercise last October on the issue of the employment of children. That is a serious problem, especially if any further relaxation of the rules were to be considered. Can the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect an announcement or a debate on that issue and will he undertake to ensure that the submissions that have been made as part of that consultation will be placed in the Library so that hon. Members can have access to that information?
Finally, a Government statement on defence procurement was expected this week by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by the defence industry itself. In view of the fact that such a statement will have implications for billions of pounds of taxpayers' money and tens of thousands of jobs, does the Leader of the House agree that it is unacceptable for the Cabinet, split though it may be on this issue, to play cat and mouse with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of defence workers in that way? When will that announcement be made? Will he give an assurance that any announcement on defence procurement will be made first in the House?

Mr. Newton: On the last point, I obviously do not accept for a moment the hon. Lady's "cat and mouse" reference. As those decisions are very important to many people—including many of my constituents—it is right that they should be considered carefully. I draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will answer questions in the House next Tuesday. In any event, I shall refer him to the hon. Lady's comments. I shall also draw the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend to her point about consultation on the employment of children.
As to holiday airlines, I draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to answer questions as early as next Monday. I have noted the hon. Lady's comments—I see that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is sitting on the edge of her seat. If additional information has been provided to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London which calls into question the accuracy of any of his remarks yesterday, I am sure that he will consider it and respond appropriately as soon as possible. I shall bring the hon. Lady's remarks to his attention.
As to the prison population and the Learmont issues, I am plainly not in a position to add to what Home Office Ministers said not long ago. No doubt the hon. Lady and others will have further opportunities to raise those points, but I cannot promise to find time for a debate, in light of the pressure of other business between now and the recess.
Lastly—and validating my previous point—I have acceded to the hon. Lady's request for a debate on procedure. She should regard that as a success, and I am grateful for her initial kind words.

Mr. John Redwood: Will the Government make time available before the summer recess to debate our options should the European Court of Justice find against us regarding the 48-hour working week directive? That is the banning or limitation of overtime directive, and we may have to implement it before the intergovernmental conference completes its deliberations. Will the Government make time available to discuss contingency plans?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend will have heard the very firm words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister uttered from this Dispatch Box less than 15 minutes ago, which I am sure he welcomed. I cannot add to them at this stage.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Prime Minister mentioned during Question Time that the review body report on the pay of Members of Parliament will be published today. Is the Leader of the House aware that the Vote Office is refusing to issue that report, on the grounds that it is not authorised to do so and has not been told when it should be published? As the report has been made available to the press, is it not common courtesy to make it available also to hon. Members?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted, and that inquiries will be made—I shall investigate the matter as soon as I have an opportunity. I understand that it was intended to make the report available at 4 pm, as is usual with review body reports.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Further to the discussion about the European directive on the 48-hour week, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he expects the European Court to give its judgment some time this week? However, it is likely that the deliberations of the IGC will not be concluded for about 18 months. If the European Court attempts to enforce any adverse judgment against Britain, will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government intend to reactivate their successful policy of non-co-operation, and determinedly uphold the sovereignty of the House?

Mr. Newton: I note the comments of my hon. Friend, following those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and I must return the same answer.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House strongly support the amendments to the Immigration and Asylum Bill made recently in the other place? Will the Government make an early statement on whether they intend to reverse those amendments, so that right hon. and hon. Members can prepare better for that Bill's important remaining stages when it returns to this House on 15 July?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is an old hand, and knows that the Government always undertake to consider changes made in the other place. I could comment on the disadvantages of those changes, but I rest on the remark that they are being examined.

Sir John Cope: Now that my right hon. Friend extends the courtesy of informing the House of Government business two weeks ahead, why is it that the Opposition consistently refuse to do the same, with Supply days for the second week left blank? Is that because the Opposition are indecisive, or because they are secretive?

Mr. Newton: Judging by many of the exchanges in the ranks of the Opposition over the past week or two, that omission is because they do not know what is their policy.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As the Leader of the House has announced that business for the week after next is provisional, and given that, in the week following, only a few days remain before the summer recess, will the right hon. Gentleman adjust business to allow a debate on the situation in Manchester following the bombing there?
Yesterday, the House spent 17 minutes discussing the Stone of Scone, but it has not spent one minute debating the Manchester bombing in the three weeks since that disaster occurred. We appreciate the letters that the Deputy Prime Minister has been sending to Members of Parliament representing Manchester constituencies and the allocation of money towards rebuilding. However, the city's Members of Parliament are anxious to have the opportunity to raise individual cases on the Floor of the House, such as that of a constituent of mine who was a security guard at the Royal Exchange theatre, but who has been thrown out of his job and had all his employment rights voided.

Mr. Newton: I well understand why the right hon. Gentleman raises such matters on behalf of his constituents, and I respect his efforts. Perhaps I may point the right hon. Gentleman in the direction of the opportunities that can arise on Wednesday mornings. As to his implication that a statement should have been made on the Manchester bombing, it has been established practice for some time not to make statements in the House whenever such an atrocity occurs. The reasons are well understood on both sides of the House.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In view of the European Commission's edict earlier this week that the quota for the herring catch in the North sea should be reduced by 50 per cent., will the Minister of Agriculture make a statement to the House next week on the common fisheries policy? Clearly the CFP is not conserving fish stocks, safeguarding livelihoods or protecting the economies of fishing communities around our coasts.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the difficult background to that issue, given the need to conserve fish stocks in the interests of the industry's future. I will bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who will be answering questions in the House within the period that my business statement covered.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Speaking as chairman both of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and of the House of Commons Members fund, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for having kept us informed of

developments in relation to the Government's decision to refer to the Senior Salaries Review Body the questions of right hon. and hon. Members' pay and pensions. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to respond in the same spirit to the widespread interest in the Prime Minister's response to the question for written answer that appears on the Order Paper the first time today, about the Government's attitude to the review body's report. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it would also be helpful to right hon. and hon. Members if he can say anything about the procedure to be followed by the Government in next Wednesday's debate?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to pre-empt the written answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will give, but of course I shall seek to make the Government's intentions clear to the House as soon as I sensibly can.

Sir Michael Spicer: Further to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's very interesting comments on the 48-hour week, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred, surely there will be some extremely complex matters to be considered relating to the potential reform of the European Court of Justice? Do not those matters merit further discussion by the House before the House rises?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request, and, as ever, I shall bear it in mind. However, it will be obvious to anyone who has listened to my statements in the past couple of weeks or who has watched the progress of the House's business on Monday or Tuesday of this week, for example, that there is considerable pressure on our time before the recess.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder whether the Leader of the House will have a word with the Home Secretary about a matter that I raised with him, so that he can make a statement at the appropriate time. The firefighters in Derbyshire are engaged in an industrial dispute, and, a few weeks ago, the three Members of Parliament for Derbyshire—myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—requested to meet the Home Secretary to try to resolve the dispute. As yet, we have not had an answer, although I challenged him about it in the House. Will the Leader of the House convey to him the need to resolve this matter, so that we can try to get the show back on the road?

Mr. Newton: I shall, of course, convey the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Sir James Hill: My right hon. Friend will probably know of events in the island of Sri Lanka over the past few months, and that the People's Alliance Government have defeated the Tamil Tigers. Meanwhile, however, the Tamil Tigers have stripped hospitals, schools and every scrap of equipment in the occupied area. A small delegation from the House will go there at the end of this month, and they will be


questioning us about medical supplies and food. I wonder whether we could have a statement next week, of whatever length, on this very important matter?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a statement on the matter next week, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will be in the House to answer questions next Wednesday.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his kind remarks earlier. While he is talking about aviation, will he have a word with the Foreign Secretary and ask him whether he can explain why, on his last trip, he chartered a plane from a US firm rather than from a British firm? At a time when the US Government are refusing permission to UK charterers to have the same facilities, that is not, to put it at its mildest, very tactful.

Mr. Newton: I can at least bring that prospective question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who, as I have just said, will be in the House next Wednesday.

Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate next week on local authority powers—bearing in mind the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is sitting beside him—so that we can examine what they are? This request arises because Yorkshire and Humberside's regional assembly, which is composed of all the councils in the area, is levying funds and taking over powers, which it has no powers to do. Can local authorities' powers be clearly and properly defined?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has kindly already noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is, in brotherly fashion, sitting by my side. In those circumstances, I shall regard the question as having been transmitted directly.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Leader of the House carefully consider finding time for a general debate on child abuse? I know that a judicial inquiry is about to start; however, over the past few weeks, I have spoken to many victims of sexual abuse and received many telephone calls and moving letters, all of which make the same point—that it is a great relief to be able to talk to a woman.
May I suggest that, during the course of such a debate, we might consider whether a man is the best person to be in charge of a judicial inquiry involving child abuse? All the victims say the same thing: they find it impossible to talk to a man—whether he is a policeman, a judge or someone else in authority—because, by and large, they have been abused by men.

Mr. Newton: I suspect that there would soon be protests of a different kind were the Government to say that a person of one sex or the other was for that reason alone to be excluded from undertaking an inquiry of that or any other nature. On the general question with which the hon. Lady started, I am not sure that it would be right to have a debate

while the inquiry is in progress. A more appropriate time might be when the inquiry has concluded.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision regarding a debate on the 48-hour-week decision of the Euro-Parliament, bearing in mind the fact that the wording of that decision, which I have read, makes it abundantly clear that virtually the whole social chapter would have to apply to this country? Would not the advantage of such a debate be that Members on both sides of the House, of all views on the European Union, and of all positions, from socialist to Conservative, could at least have the opportunity to express an opinion on the breach of a treaty that a British Government have suffered? Would it not be helpful to have such a debate, as a means of giving the House the opportunity to express an opinion, rather than our having a party slanging match?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, whose constituency is in the same county as mine, has now become the fourth Member who, even without our having a debate, has found an opportunity to make his views very clear. I am sure not only that those views will be noted by the Prime Minister, but that my hon. Friend will have welcomed what the Prime Minister said.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Lord President told us last week that it was hoped that there would be a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee before the rising of the House. Is he in a position to inform us when that might be, bearing in mind the fact that this week a mischievous article in the Belfast Telegraph spread ignorance by suggesting that that was a new Committee? Others were suggesting that nothing should be done to scrutinise government in this place until people decide what they want over there. Surely it is time that the Grand Committee met to consider the issue.

Mr. Newton: The present position is that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), hopes to obtain confirmation shortly from all the Northern Ireland parties that they are content for the Committee to meet to debate the reports of the examiner of statutory rules, and also hopes that a suitable date for such a meeting can be found. I shall certainly do all I can to assist.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate before the recess on the allocation of lottery funds? One thinks especially of the allocations made by the charities board. In the most recent round, it gave money to gay organisations and to people fighting asylum deportations, yet refused an application for about £160,000 by Crimestoppers for a campaign called "Say No and Phone", which it had organised before and wished to extend for two years. As youth and the fight against crime were intended to benefit from the allocations, the Crimestoppers campaign should be supported. The House should be able to make its view known on that point.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend might care to think of that subject as one for a Wednesday morning. No doubt he will recall the observations by the Prime Minister and


the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the grants that he mentioned were announced, and I am sure that those words are being carefully considered.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House place on the record whether he expects the code of conduct produced by the Standards and Privileges Committee to be published before the recess?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member of that Committee, and one who is being most helpful in our deliberations. He will know well, although I appreciate why he wants to get the matter on the record, that the answer to his question is yes, we hope to produce the code before the recess.

Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will know from his fairly recent visit to Torbay about the importance of the Kingskerswell by-pass. Will he find time for the necessary orders relating to the private finance initiative, which we hope will be supported by Devon county council, to be laid before the House, if not before the recess, as soon as possible on our return?
The economic prosperity of Torbay largely depends on eliminating that bottleneck. The PFI is the only solution, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider Government business immediately on our return, so as to get the orders through as quickly as possible. They have the support not only of the Department of Transport but of the Minister for the south-west, our right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).

Mr. Newton: I will, as always, be as helpful as is practicable.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have time to debate the splendid report that was published this morning by the Transport Select Committee on casualty reduction, which has great potential to reduce fatal accidents, particularly its recommendation that the Government should advertise, and thus make clear to the public, the destructive, killing nature of bull bars? We need that debate so that the Government cannot repeat their disgraceful behaviour in March, when they talked out the Bill that is being re-presented next Friday.

Mr. Newton: I have an increasingly high regard for the hon. Gentleman's persistence, and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. David Congdon: Given the disruption and inconvenience experienced by Londoners during the tube strikes, will my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity for an urgent debate on that subject, so that all hon. Members will have an opportunity to discuss it, and perhaps it will give an opportunity for reticent Opposition Members to condemn this unnecessary dispute?

Mr. Newton: That is a very good idea.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why have we not had a ministerial statement on the outcome of the International Whaling Commission meeting that took place last week in Aberdeen? After all, the British Government took a firm stand against any resumption of commercial whaling. However, Norway walked out, and now continues to flout the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. We really should have a statement on that.
If we cannot, can we please have a debate, so that the anger felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and public opinion in this country, can be forcefully expressed to Norway, which goes around the world saying that it upholds international agreements, but clearly only those that happen to be in its interests.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the firm position taken by the British Government, and I know him well enough to know that he will indeed welcome it. I cannot promise him a debate, but he is another hon. Member whom I might steer in the direction of a possible application for a Wednesday morning debate.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Can my right hon. Friend find time—perhaps it would be a good subject for an Opposition day, since the Opposition do not seem to know what to debate on those days—to debate closed circuit television? That subject would be particularly valuable on an Opposition day, because the Liberal Democrat-controlled Wigston borough council, in my constituency, failed to make an application to the Home Office for funding for CCTV, whereas two grant-maintained schools and a local education authority school that share a campus, supported by Leicestershire constabulary. made a successful bid, and were granted £95,000 to put up CCTV on their campus. Can we please have an early debate on this, because the benefits of CCTV should be better realised by the Liberal Democrat-controlled council in my constituency?

Mr. Newton: That is another attractive idea for a debate, not least because it would give me an opportunity to congratulate my constituents in Witham, Essex, on being successful in the challenge fund.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Going back to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the prison situation, and following answers given to me yesterday afternoon in the Select Committee, and this afternoon by the Home Secretary, it seems that a very serious problem is being missed. So far this year, there have been six serious alerts in the prison system. The number of prison suicides is rising. Yet the number of prison officers employed is decreasing, because of various cuts, and recruitment is frozen.
In the explosive situation that is developing—particularly as the number of prisoners incarcerated will rise by some 7,000 this year, which will be 7,000 over capacity—is it not time that the House debated the Prison Service?

Mr. Newton: I would be more responsive to the hon. Gentleman if he had taken the trouble to mention that escapes were down by 60 per cent. last year, and if he


had adverted to the fact that, this year, more than £50 million is being spent on security improvements at dispersal prisons, endorsed by Sir John Learmont.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Further to the answers that my right hon. Friend gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), does my right hon. Friend not consider the outcome of the European Court of Justice judgment on the working time directive of such significance politically and constitutionally that the House should be granted a debate on it?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is another to whom I must—and indeed, gladly do—pay my warm respects for his persistence. He brings to five the number of those who have raised that point. I shall also draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Given the extraordinary news that Baroness Thatcher is to go to Hong Kong to oversee the transition from British rule to Chinese-communist rule, will the Leader of the House find time before the recess for a debate on Hong Kong? It is more than a year since we have had a specific debate on Hong Kong, there is a great deal of worry and concern there, and Government interventions are needed in the remaining eleven and a half months to try to improve what will be a fairly chaotic situation as Lady Thatcher waves goodbye to Chris Patten and hands back 5 million Chinese people to communist dictatorship.

Mr. Newton: Some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks did less than justice to his perfectly reasonable emphasis on the importance of some of the problems. However, with that said, I am afraid that I cannot at present undertake to find time for a debate before the recess.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on foreign affairs, so that we can congratulate Mr. Yeltsin on his re-election, which will improve the world's safety and is good news for everyone. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some individuals, who paradoxically supported the Campaign

for Nuclear Disarmament when there was a communist Government in the USSR, now say that they want to keep the independent deterrent?

Mr. Newton: I should like to wish President Yeltsin, as I am sure would everybody in the House, a speedy return to full vigour after what has clearly been a very gruelling and hard-fought campaign.

Mr. Nick Ainger: The Leader of the House will be aware that, on Tuesday night, the House did not reach the business on the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996. In his business statement for the next two weeks, no mention was made of those regulations. Does he intend to provide an opportunity to debate them before the recess?

Mr. Newton: We are obviously considering that matter in the light of what happened on Tuesday evening, which was, of course, as a result of the extensive debate on the Broadcasting Bill.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate on the economy in Lancashire, so that we can examine the danger that two of Lancashire's main industries—defence and tourism—face from the Labour party? Is he aware that the restrictions that Labour Members would place on defence exports would decimate jobs in the defence industry in Lancashire, and that the social chapter and the minimum wage would destroy tourism?

Mr. Newton: Without knowing the full details of my hon. Friend's constituency, that certainly sounds like a very good example of the new dangers that new Labour is bringing forward.

Mr. Jim Dowd: Will the Leader of the House discuss with his colleague the Minister with responsibility for health in Northern Ireland the latest revelations that 6,000 operations and 55,000 out-patient appointments have been cancelled, and operating theatres in many hospitals will be closed throughout the summer because of cash cuts that his right hon. Friend has imposed? Since the Minister said at the time that there would be service reductions as a result of those cuts, will the Leader of the House ask him to explain to the House whether the cuts are running according to target?

Mr. Newton: I have in fact already asked my right hon. Friend and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to be here to answer questions next Thursday.

Points of Order

Mr. Nick Ainger: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House tell us that there is a possibility, and only a possibility, that the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996 will be debated before the recess.
I have a copy of a leaflet that has been sent to every person who is in receipt of the mobility component of the disability living allowance. It informs them that there is a new law affecting the disability living allowance, and that, from 31 July, the law has changed so that people in hospital might lose the mobility component. Is it in order for the Department of Social Security to issue thousands of leaflets pointing out that the law has changed when it has not? Is that not an abuse of the House?

Madam Speaker: The law has changed and the leaflet is perfectly in order. I have dealt with the matter for other Members who raised it with me through correspondence. The regulations have been laid before Parliament subject to the negative procedure and are therefore in force unless annulled. If he would like to come and see me, I will explain it to him further, but there is no problem about it.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister this afternoon, there emanated from the back end of the Chamber the word "boring". We can tolerate that, but a strange mooing sound then emanated from a certain Conservative Member. It may be that the Member who made the noise is ill. Could you use your good offices to indicate to the Serjeant at Arms and the various gentlemen ushers that, if the noise is heard again, assistance should be given to its maker?

Madam Speaker: If I were to hear such a noise, I myself would give assistance, by moving whoever made it out of the Chamber.

Local Government (Structural Change)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That the draft Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the draft Cheshire (Boroughs of Halton and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (tructural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Shropshire (District of The Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
That the draft Berkshire (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
These 10 orders make up the final stage of the local government review. Between them, they will establish 19 unitary authorities in 10 counties. They are—Plymouth, Torbay, Nottingham, Herefordshire, Southend, Thurrock, Gillingham and Rochester combined, Peterborough, Halton, Warrington, Blackburn, Blackpool, The Wrekin, Bracknell Forest, Newbury, Reading, Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham.
In nine of the counties, the changes affect individual districts or combinations of districts, leaving the rest of the county with two-tier local government. In Berkshire, the order will abolish the county council and set up six unitary authorities—one for each of the existing districts. I shall address the position in Berkshire in more detail later.
Some of the changes were recommended as part of the county structure of reviews, and some emerged from the reviews of individual districts that I directed the commission under Sir David Cooksey to carry out last summer. I should like to take this opportunity to thank Sir David and the commission for their work and their prompt completion of the district reviews. Those who have dealt with the commission and Sir David will know the care with which they approached their task. That work has been invaluable in bringing the review to a satisfactory, coherent and, I believe, widely accepted conclusion.
The recommendations that the orders will implement have been fully explained by the commission in its reports. However, there are two orders on which I feel I ought to comment specifically.

Sir Michael Spicer: Why did my right hon. Friend not use the pause created by the


technical revisions required for the order for Hereford and Worcester and the existence of a new chairman of the commission to introduce unitary authorities for Worcestershire as he has for Herefordshire and the other 17 in the list that he has just read out?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will remember that I sought to remove as much of the uncertainty as I could, while seeking greater coherence in the pattern of local government. All parties in the House believe that the previous proposals lacked the universal coherence that we were looking for. I thought that it was wrong to move further than that and to ask for yet more reviews, particularly where there was no significant pressure for a different outcome. While I understand his disappointment, most people in local government felt that we needed to bring the matter to an end as rapidly as possible so that they could get on with the real job of running their localities.
The recommendations that the orders will implement have been fully explained by the commission, but I want to refer first to Kent and the unitary authority that is proposed, joining together the districts of Gillingham and Rochester upon Medway. I made clear at the beginning of the further district reviews the importance that we attach to the economic development of the Thames gateway in Kent and Essex. I asked the commission to consider the ways in which unitary authorities might benefit such development.
Many hon. Members have seen the important example of regeneration in the royal dockyard at Chatham. It is a vital site and yet, almost inconceivably, it is split between Gillingham and Rochester. I was brought up in that part of the country and, like others, I know that one cannot easily tell when one is in Rochester and when one is in Gillingham, but that development is an essential part of the regeneration of both. The commission concluded that the poor relations between the various local authorities could not be in the best interests of local people and that a single authority would have the capacity to overcome such difficulties and bring a common purpose to the area. I agree wholeheartedly.
The second area is Berkshire. Much is made of the fact that it is the only county council of an historic county that is being abolished as a result of the local government review. We are also told that this means the end of the royal county of Berkshire. I want to put an end to that claim immediately. This order means the end of Berkshire county council, but not of the royal county of Berkshire. After all, it is the county that is royal, not the county council. Berkshire itself is not touched. For example, there will still be a Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire, and I have no doubt that people who live in the county will refer to themselves as coming from Berkshire.
Some people protest that Berkshire county council has been picked out for special treatment. I can do no more than refer to the submission put to the commission in 1994 by the local authorities in Berkshire, including the county council. Berkshire county council was the only county council to press for its own abolition. The summary of that submission, which is supported by the county council, states:
All councils, including the county council, recognise that unitary authorities are the best way of delivering services in Berkshire. The two-tier system has caused confusion since its introduction in 1974,

and there is support for change within the community. Unitary authorities will be closer and more accountable to their communities.
I agree entirely.
What is more, if it was true in 1994 that unitary authorities would be best for service delivery, it must be true now. It is difficult to see what might have happened in those two years to make the county council think differently.

Mr. John Redwood: The current Berkshire county council and Wokingham district council are saying that considerable extra costs will be incurred if the reorganisation goes ahead. That is quite a change of position from the one to which my right hon. Friend referred two or three years ago. Can he offer me any reassurance that he will take a strong personal interest in controlling the reorganisation costs, because Berkshire ratepayers would not want money to be spent unnecessarily on what should be a move to increase efficiency rather than spending?

Mr. Gummer: I will certainly give my right hon. Friend that assurance. After all, it would be fair to say that the Liberals, in particular, in both the county and the district councils have the costs in their own hands. It would be possible for them to attempt to make what could be an uncostly operation very costly indeed—it would be in character. I hope that they will act out of character and do it in the way that their Tory predecessors would have done—with expedition and at little expense. I shall use the powers that I have to ensure that that happens.

Mr. David Rendel: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the change in the expected cost of the transition in Berkshire has been based on figures given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), in a parliamentary answer last week, in which he indicated that the transitional costs were a great deal higher than they were expected to be when the provisional suggestion was made?

Mr. Gummer: Suggestions are based on the information that the local authorities concerned provide. That is the only way to make such assessments. Many local authorities appear to be making the change much more cheaply than even they had thought possible. I understand that the hon. Gentleman supports unitary status for Newbury, but I have not been able to discover whether he supports it for anywhere else in Berkshire. Many find such a degree of parochialism curious. The Opposition and the Government know well that Liberal policy stretches as far as the ward boundary. To find a policy that reaches over an entire constituency is itself a remarkable fact. We can hardly expect it to reach to every corner of Berkshire because no doubt Liberals have to be counted one by one. I understand that he is looking hard to find a way in which he can support unitary authority status for one bit, oppose it for another and be


even-handed about it for a third. Those options will be chosen not on the merits of the case but on whether there is an extra vote to be found.

Sir Anthony Durant: On transitional costs, the new unitary authorities will sell county hall. Latest estimates value it at £25 million, although it was a monster in the first place.

Mr. Gummer: I try to be careful about judging the design of buildings. I would not like to reduce the value of county hall by describing it as a monster. I would believe the figure that my hon. Friend mentioned if it was set to be achieved by a local authority skilled in the ways of the world and able to sell effectively in the market, but I have to remember that we are again in the hands of the Liberals.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's vitriol towards the Liberal party, but why on earth does he countenance the continued partnership between the Liberal and Conservative parties in Cheshire? Would not the administration be more efficient and better serve the interests of local ratepayers if democracy prevailed and the largest party were given control?

Mr. Gummer: A representative of a party that is hand in glove with the Liberals from one end of the country to the other is in no position to lecture me on that. I suffer from a Lib-Lab pact in my constituency. It can make no decisions of benefit to the Suffolk Coastal area because the parties cannot agree on anything except delay. Sometimes, of course, that is an advantage. For the Labour party to tell me that there is something wrong with pacts with the Liberals beggars description. I have never had any close relationships with Liberals and I do not intend to start now.
I decided to modify the commission's recommendations in this case to make each of the six districts of Berkshire a unitary authority because I was not convinced that a merger between Bracknell Forest—I always think that that name has a wonderful Wildean touch—and Windsor and Maidenhead was necessary or desirable. It would be disruptive and increase the transitional costs. Equally important were the representations that I received after the commission's report was published, which persuaded me that a separate council for each district would better reflect community identities.
The fundamental contents of the 10 orders are all the same and they are the same as those of the orders that the House has considered in the past. They all provide for the setting up of unitary authorities from 1 April 1998 and, in all cases, there will be all-out elections for a new council in the May before reorganisation, that is, May 1997. In some cases, the orders provide for redrawing the ward boundaries. It is important that the unitary authorities start life with the most up-to-date electoral arrangements possible. However, the tight timetable for the reviews did not allow full consideration of the electoral arrangements of the unitary authorities which emerged from the further district structure reviews last year. It is for that reason that I have directed the commission to consider the warding

of those areas. It is due to report its conclusions at the beginning of December. That view is widely supported on both sides of the House.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Secretary of State make clear what will happen in the county council elections to be held next year in places which will no longer be in the county council area?

Mr. Gummer: We will make it exactly clear on a ward-by-ward basis, because that is what is necessary, in all the cases where changes will take place such as those in Shropshire, where The Wrekin will come out. It will be necessary to show how each of the councils elected will apply in the period that continues. We will make that clear to each of the counties so that there is no doubt in any circumstances.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly recall the representations that he has received from Shropshire county councillors about the election. May I seek his assurance that he will further investigate the matter with a view to making fairer and more equitable electoral arrangements for our county?

Mr. Gummer: I will always look again at these issues, but as I have explained to the county councillors who have approached me on the matter, I am bound by statute. It is most important that the Secretary of State is bound by statute, for the electoral arrangements are the basis for democracy. Therefore, it is important that the House should be assured that we proceed in a way which is manifestly fair. So I am glad that my hon. Friend has used the word "fair". The fact of the matter is that the course of action that has been represented to me as beneficial—however admirable it may be—is not open to me under the law. If it were, of course one would consider it in the non-partisan light that the House would expect. However, if one does not have the opportunity, it is difficult to take it further. I will look again at the matter in case there is any point that I have missed. If my hon. Friend wishes to pass any points to me, I shall be happy to consider them.

Mr. David Jamieson: Will the Secretary of State give us the benefit of the thinking behind the electoral arrangements in Plymouth and Torbay? Elections will be held in 1997 and the councillors will take over their full duties in 1998, yet they will have only a two-year term of office because there will be further elections in 2000. There will then be an election in 2003 and every fourth year beyond that. So effectively the councillors will have only two years in office before 2000 yet in the future they will be elected every fourth year. What was the thinking behind that?

Mr. Gummer: We attempted to find a way to meld one set of elections in with other sets of elections. It is hard to do that in a way that will be seen not to be unfair to anyone. So far, I have not received any complaints about the package that has been put together, but if the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a better way of doing it, I shall be happy to listen to him. I am genuinely trying to do what is best in the circumstances. I am not trying to make anything more difficult. I am doing what the law tells me I can do and, within that, what seems to be most


convenient and, above all, most even-handed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise any points with me, I shall be open to it.

Mr. James Couchman: There is some suspicion that a certain amount of asset-stripping may take place between now and when the new unitary authorities take their powers in 1998. What powers will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that that does not happen? It is a particular worry in Gillingham, where there may be a great wastage of assets by the present Liberal Democrat majority.

Mr. Gummer: I am very conscious of this matter. For example, I am conscious of the promises that county councils made about subsidiarity when they seemed to be under threat. I am following up those promises to see whether they were carried through to both district and parish councils. I am also looking at whether district council promises to parish councils were fulfilled. In the same way, we shall look carefully at the way in which the assets are dealt with. Happily, we now have a better form than in the past. We have learnt from the past. I hope very much that we can protect my hon. Friend's constituents. I give a warning to those who think that it is a proper way to deal with public assets to spend them while they have them in their hands rather than conserving them to reduce the transitional costs so that there is more to give back to those who have paid for the assets—the council taxpayers.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am almost entirely at one with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on the thrust of his point. There must be strict policing to ensure that, in my case, Essex county council does not covet plant and offices currently situated in Southend and Thurrock and bring them into the residual county's area. Such things belong to Thurrock and Southend—I am keen that there should be strict policing and control and that there should be no asset stripping from those two areas by the county council.

Mr. Gummer: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials and Ministers—and Ministers do take the subject seriously—will consider those issues. They are not always quite as simple as they are made out to be. County council assets have to be within a district council area—that is one of the characteristics of a two-tier system. If those district councils become unitary authorities there may be some argument as to whether the asset is properly a district area facility that can be reasonably transferred or whether it is part of a wider network and can therefore be treated in a different way. There are difficulties and the matter needs to be carefully watched. I appreciate that it is a non-partisan concern and that we need to watch it on a non-partisan basis.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the position in Lancashire? Whereas the good people of Blackburn and Blackpool can look forward to the benefits of unitary status while remaining in the county of Lancashire, the people of Bolton, who have enjoyed unitary status for 10 years, are still denied their rightful place in the county of Lancashire. The people of Bolton have been in Lancashire for 800 years—it is their overwhelming desire to be in Lancashire: over 99 per cent. were in favour of it

according to the most recent opinion poll. Will my right hon. Friend ask the commission to look into restoring Bolton to its rightful place in the historic county of Lancashire?

Mr. Gummer: The advantages of moving back into the historic county of Lancashire are enormously increased if one is a unitary authority that can be in the county without being subject to that particular county council. It is for those who live in the county of Lancashire to consider whether they wanted such large sums of their money to be spent by Lancashire county council in a fruitless attempt to try to stop the people of Blackpool and Blackburn having the unitary authorities that they wanted.
I wonder whether it was worth spending any of that money; all that it has done is to ensure that the House has been unable to look at the issues as it should and the county council appeared to try to stop the House holding perfectly reasonable discussions and making a decision on the matter. I therefore have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and will look into the matter as he has asked me to do.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As one of the great admirers of my right hon. Friend's political skills, may I say that he was right to comment that Lib-Lab parties in local government have been all over the place on the subject of unitary authority status—indeed, they have been in Southend, where they were initially against it, then wanted to achieve it more quickly. For the rest of his speech, will my right hon. Friend concentrate on trying to produce unity in the House of Commons? The people of Southend, who are enthusiastic and very much looking forward to the proposals, would be further reassured if those plans were given a welcome and an endorsement from all the Opposition parties. With the great skills that he has, will my right hon. Friend concentrate on achieving unity of purpose in today's debate?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend may have noticed that even when I have had to criticise the action of a particular county council, I have received wide support of the nodding variety from the Labour party.

Mr. Jack Straw: More than nodding.

Mr. Gummer: I know that a number of hon. Members have given public support. People sometimes confuse what is good for their county with what is to their personal advantage. I fear that that distinction has not always been properly made.

Mr. Frank Dobson: It would be awful if we got into party politics.

Mr. Gummer: It would indeed be awful when we do not need to, except possibly the odd word or two about those who cannot make up their minds.
The orders trigger the extra powers and duties that are placed on all the county and district councils involved in reorganisation. Those are the powers and duties to prepare for the change and to co-operate with each other. In most cases, the powers and duties are contained in separate general regulations, but in a few cases—Herefordshire


and Gillingham and Rochester—they are included in the order because of the extra details needed when a completely new authority is being created.

Mr. John Butcher: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so often and so early in the debate.
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I declare a non-pecuniary interest as honorary president of the Association of British Counties, which is dedicated to restoring all the old counties for all purposes other than local government. Does my right hon. Friend share my enthusiasm for the news that I received from the Post Office this week that people who live in places like Birmingham, Stafford, Walsall and Coventry can now use in their addresses the ancient pre-1974 counties? Thus for postal purposes, Birmingham can become Warwickshire, Staffordshire can reclaim Walsall and Wolverhampton, and Coventry can use Warwickshire. Does not that help to resolve the question of old loyalties while having new unitary forms of local government? We have the best of both worlds.

Mr. Gummer: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I have lived for some time in Fressingfield, Diss, Norfolk. Fressingfield used to be in Suffolk. Although we join the people of Norfolk when it is a question of arguing with Essex, over the Waveney border, the difference is considerable. I managed to get the Post Office to allow us to become Fressingfield, Eye, Suffolk, which cheered many except those who had bought an engraving block and therefore had to replace it. One or two people with expensive addresses were unhappy about the change, but, in general, people like to keep the ancient link.
The local government review has clearly been controversial in many places and has caused not a little antagonism. However, all the local authorities involved in the 10 orders must now put their differences behind them. Although, as the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" said, it may sometimes feel that one side or other has possession of the place of slaughter, triumphalism or underground resistance can only hold back the return to normality. Once the orders are made, the time for political posturing will be past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, it will be time to work responsibly together so that the changes are implemented smoothly and quickly to the benefit of all who live and work in those places.
Local authorities have worked hard to make a success of the reorganisations that have already taken place or will take place next year. I do not often quote Councillor David Rogers, chairman of East Sussex county council's transition committee, but he is reported in the Association of County Councils' newsletter as follows:
We have started to explore together how we can make local government work better in the future than it has done in the past. This reorganisation represents a real opportunity for local government and our partners in this county to introduce positive changes and serve our local communities better.
I have no doubt that the same will be true for the reorganisations resulting from these 10 orders.
I intend that there will be no more structure reviews for some time. It is right that the unitary authorities should have time to bed down, and the county councils, which

have been reduced in size, should have the opportunity to adjust to their new circumstances. All local government should now turn its attention from issues of structure to concentrate on improving services in both unitary and two-tier areas. It is always possible for local government to delegate many of its powers to smaller groups and ensure that the money goes with them. So even when there is no unitary authority, that sort of partnership is a way forward. Indeed, it might be the best way forward in many areas.
The commission's priority over the coming years will be to take forward its programme of periodic electoral reviews, a duty placed on it by the 1992 Act. Because the commission has been concentrating on structural issues, there is now a substantial backlog compared with the timetable set down in the Act, as well as significant electoral disparities in many local authorities.
Finally, I should like to refer briefly to the completed picture of the local government review, for which these 10 orders make up the final component. This is not meant as an apologia as I believe that it is clear that the local government review has resulted in, and will continue to lead to, a number of benefits for local government and its customers. In all, 46 unitary authorities will have emerged in shire England as a result of the review. By April 1998—when the last unitary authorities are in place—about 25 million people, or 54 per cent. of the population of England, will be served by unitary local government, including London and the metropolitan authorities.
The Government have never made any secret of their belief that unitary local government holds out many benefits. It does away with the confusion about which council does what which afflicts many people. Ending that confusion can only be good for the accountability of local authorities. Very often, people do not know who does the job, so when it is not done properly they blame someone else or they get so confused that they blame no one at all. This will make for more streamlined local government so that individual functions, such as social services and housing, can be delivered together where circumstances merit such an arrangement. It provides a wonderful opportunity for innovation across the board.
However, it is not only where the review has resulted in new structures that benefits can be obtained—even where there will be no change, there has been the opportunity for authorities to examine how they organise themselves and how they work with others so that they can deliver their services in the most effective and convenient way. During the review, many authorities made promises about the improvements that they would make. I have made it very clear that I expect the authorities to put the flesh on those bones and that I shall take a close interest in their progress. The Audit Commission is now following up the action being taken by authorities, both to put the promises into effect and, more generally, to improve working between the tiers.
I believe that the review has been a positive discipline and challenge, and that the outcome can only be an improvement in the quality of local government offered to the people of England. The picture will not be complete without the 19 unitary authorities that are under consideration today. These orders will bring the whole review to a proper conclusion and I therefore commend them to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) was supposed to lead for the Labour party in this debate but, sadly, her father—the right hon. Ernest Armstrong, a former Deputy Speaker of the House—is seriously ill in hospital and she has had to go to County Durham. I am sure that all hon. Members who know him will wish him well.
Today is American Independence day—and it is independence day for 19 more unitary authorities. Today, the proposition before us is to return duties and powers to authorities that should never have been taken away from them in the first place—they were taken away by a previous Conservative Government. In recent decades, the Conservative party has had some difficulty holding on to the title "Conservative", because it has been the party of constant reorganisation and then re-reorganisation—which is what we are getting today.
We welcome the changes, which are the product of a review that was originally set in train by the right hon. Member for Henley, now the Deputy Prime Minister. At the time, he said:
We know that most local authorities want unitary status and we believe that such status will provide a better structure for the future in most areas."—[Official Report, 20 January 1992; Vol. 232, c. 37.]
Things have not turned out as the right hon. Member for Henley predicted. Indeed, one of my predecessors pointed out in that debate that it looked as though the commission would roam around the countryside guided by the whim of the Secretary of State, that the recommendations would be subject to the whim of the Secretary of State and that they would leave local government in chaos—and so it has turned out.
In fairness to the Secretary of State, it was not entirely done at his whim—there seemed to be a large amount of whim by the former chairman of the Local Government Commission, Sir John Banham, which is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State and I got together in an unholy partnership to try to put it right again.
We now have 46 new unitary authorities—including Rutland, with a population of 33,000; but it does not include Northampton, with a population of 188,000, Norwich with 128,000, Ipswich with 114,000 or Gloucester and Exeter both with 105,000. It is a bit of a mess. The Secretary of State and I could claim—and we are seldom joined together in anything, other than acrimony—that the situation was improved by our joint effort to refer back some of the proposals to a new commission, led by Sir David Cooksey.
Today we have before us the original proposals from the Banham Local Government Commission—which were held back because parts of the proposals were being referred to the Cooksey commission—and the proposal for Berkshire, where progress was delayed by a legal challenge. This proposition, from the original Local Government Commission, is for independence for the following authorities: Plymouth, which has 256,000 people; Torbay, 123,000; Southend, 170,000; Nottingham, 282,000; Herefordshire, 162,000; West Berkshire, which may pose as Newbury from time to time, 142,000; Reading, 138,000; Slough, 105,000; Windsor and Maidenhead, 138,000; Bracknell Forest, 105,000; and Wokingham, 142,000. We are also dealing with the results of the reference back, which includes independence for

Peterborough, with 159,000 people; Warrington, 187,000; Halton, 124,000; Thurrock, 131,000; Blackburn, 140,000; Blackpool, 154,000; Wrekin, 143,000; and Medway Towns—a huge new authority—242,000.
I hope that all hon. Members wish the new councils well and that they succeed and prosper. If we are reasonable people, we have to understand he disappointment and heartache that this involves for the county people—both members and staff—who have worked over the years to provide decent services all over the country. This is especially difficult for county people to cope with. For example, Berkshire disappears altogether; Lancashire, Cheshire and Devon will lose two major boroughs; and Shropshire, Hereford and Worcester will lose a large portion of their original county.
I hope that no one will feel that this is a condemnation of what the counties have done—times have changed and, therefore, the structure has to change. This is not necessarily all for the best—we live in a world where all decisions can be taken only on the balance of advantage. On balance, most hon. Members believe that these changes will be for the better. They will help to resolve some of the problems that exist at present, but they may create other problems and difficulties.
As the Secretary of State has said, this is no time for triumphalism by the districts or for a dog-in-the-manger attitude or a scorched-earth policy by the counties. We have to remember that the transitional period and what follows has to serve the interests of local people—their interests must be the top priority. I hope that there will be the fullest co-operation between the new authorities and the existing counties to the benefit of local people—and the Labour party will do whatever it can to ensure that that happens. Much agitation may have been caused in some areas—for example, Lancashire—but whether the campaign for or against was legitimate, it is finished. It must be finished and everyone must work together. In the areas for which the orders have already gone through, the new authorities are working well. I know that arrangements have been made by some of the beneficiaries of today's orders to learn from the experience of areas that are already a year or more ahead. We do not want people to have to reinvent the wheel.
The Government will have to make a contribution in the form of generous settlements to help the process of change. The Secretary of State should carefully consider the standard spending assessments for the successor authorities and try to ensure parity of treatment. In the most recent round of changes, an extraordinary situation arose. In the new districts, the council tax changes in May this year varied from increases of 10 per cent. in Hartlepool, 14 per cent. in Redcar in Cleveland, 13 per cent. in Bristol and 31 per cent. in north Lincolnshire, to reductions of 8 per cent. in north-west Somerset, 10 per cent. in Hove and nearly 16 per cent. in Middlesbrough. The general idea is that the council tax should reflect the responsibilities of the councils, but those increases or decreases did not reflect anything that the councils had done. They were entirely a product of Government decision making and were seen as grossly unfair by some of the authorities that did badly. I hope that the Secretary of State and his officials will try to ensure that that does not happen again.
We have heard various estimates from those in favour of change and those against. Those in favour of change have said that the ultimate cost will be lower and those against have said that the ultimate cost will be higher.


Frankly, I never believe any of the information that is wheeled out by various outfits in the City, because they will produce the figure that the county or the district employing them wants. We all know that. As far as I know, no organisation that has asked for City or accountants' advice about whether changes will be more expensive has ever been told that they will be cheaper, and vice versa. That shows what weight we can give to such estimates.
Common sense says, and anyone who believes himself to be a philosophical Conservative will surely accept, that—whatever the ultimate savings or costs—the process of change, or the transition, is always costly in both resources and the attention that the senior people involved have to pay to their job to try to provide services. It is difficult for people to do their basic jobs if those jobs will disappear or their organisation will be chopped in half. It is important that the Government ensure that the transition is cushioned by adequate funding, or it will be harmful to local people, local services and also to the staff who provide those services.
The bulk of staff in the districts and the counties are hard-working people who are motivated by the public service ethic, which is sometimes not given the value that it deserves. The staff are entitled to some security or compensation or both and I hope that the Government will provide that. We should thank all those who have provided services.
A curious electoral situation will prevail next May because of the delays. In the elections to the shadow councils for those unitary authorities, it is not intended that there should be any elections to the county council from the new districts, but there will be elections to the county council from all other parts of the county. Great care will have to be taken to ensure that any change—I do not necessarily mean a change of political control, but a change of personalities or an influx of people who have not been involved and are not familiar with the problems and relationships—does not damage the delivery of services.
I am sure that the whole House will wish the successor authorities well. I can tell people in those areas that the incoming Labour Government, which will be elected not long after the council elections, will enable and empower councils to provide the services that people want and will give councils a duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas and to provide best value for money. However people vote in the forthcoming elections, it is crucial that everybody who is elected and everybody who works for the new authorities—and for those authorities that feel bereft of the new districts—all remember that their crucial and only role is to serve the people of the area and not their own personal interests or the interests of the institutions that they hold dear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members should know that, although there is no 10-minute restriction on speeches, the debate must end at 7.10 pm. I appeal for short contributions.

Mr. Paul Channon: I assure the House that I will be extremely brief. I am afraid that I will make an excessively dull speech, but I hope that the

House will for give me. It will be dull because I agree with what has already been said, and that is rare. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in particular, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on about 99 per cent. of his speech. We need not worry about the hon. Gentleman's prophecies about the next election. I congratulate both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman on achieving, if not complete unanimity, a large measure of agreement across the House. My right hon. Friend will recall that the situation was different when the massive local government reorganisation took place some 20 years ago. The current changes have been handled with extreme skill.
It was a great mistake—in retrospect, and some of us thought so at the time—to abolish the county boroughs.

Mr. Mackinlay: Whose fault was it?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask whose fault it was, but no political party in the House can look back at that episode with total happiness. We all got it wrong at various moments. In my constituency, the Liberals got it wrong about three times. They were against the reforms and then they wanted to change back to the county borough and the unitary authority. As soon as that happened, they were against it again, and now, I am reliably informed, they are in favour of a unitary authority and they criticise the Government for not having introduced it more quickly. That said, I must admit that the Conservative party's position has also been slightly difficult.
It was a great mistake to have abolished the county boroughs and I am glad that the unitary authorities—which are, in effect, county boroughs—have been brought back. I am also glad that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that we should thank the councillors and officials of the old authorities. Those in Essex did much to try to help Southend during the past 20 years. We are not disposed unfavourably towards them, but we are pleased that we will govern our affairs once more. I have had my differences with Essex county council in the past few years—even more so recently—and I do not agree with its social services policy. I do not agree with its education policy and people in Southend are seriously worried about some of its actions, but tonight is not the night to go into those matters in great detail.
I have never before agreed with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras so often. As he said, today is Independence day—
High as the flag on the 4th of July!
The change will be a wonderful moment for those middle-aged and older people who remember when Southend had a county borough before. They now look forward with optimism and hope to a unitary authority that will be able to run its own affairs in the interests of those living in the town and taking an active part in local life. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government and I congratulate the Opposition, too, on their virtually bipartisan support. This is an important day for Southend and I am happy that, once more, we shall have a unitary authority.

Mr. Mike Hall: It gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate in support of the structural change orders.
The order for the boroughs of Halton and Warrington affects my constituency. I am delighted with the recommendations, as I am a long-time supporter of unitary local government. In my maiden speech to the House on 6 May 1992, I said that I hoped to see unitary status for Halton and Warrington within the lifetime of this Parliament. That will happen this afternoon when the order is passed.
My support for unitary local government has been fostered over many years. I was first elected to my local council in 1979. At that time, Warrington borough council was Conservative-led and the then Conservative leader, Councillor John Walsh, was a strong advocate of unitary local government. When political control changed, the incoming Labour council adhered to that objective.
I am proud to tell the House that, when I was leader of Warrington borough council between 1985 and 1992, I vigorously pursued the aim of achieving unitary status for my authority. My good friend, Councillor John Gartside, who now leads Warrington borough council, has also pursued the goal of unitary status with single-minded determination and vision. My good friend, Councillor Dave Cargill, and his colleagues on Halton borough council have been tireless in their efforts to bring about local self-government for the people of Halton.
I strongly support unitary local government, because it strengthens the democratic process by bringing local government closer to the people. As we approach the new millennium, we must search for better ways of involving people in the decisions that affect the way in which society is run. I make no apologies for saying that democracy demands that we devolve power, responsibility and decision making from the centre to the smaller units of government. Power should be devolved from Europe down the line, past Whitehall and Westminster, to units of local government that are capable of effective decision making and service delivery. That important role for local government will be achieved through the creation of unitary local government. We are debating the practical application of devolution this afternoon.
Decisions about local government services and their delivery and management in Halton and Warrington should be made by councillors who are elected by, and are accountable to, their local communities. I would like to see an end to the two-tier system which the orders provide in favour of a single tier of local government. That would remove confusion and make councils responsible to the communities that they are elected to serve.
I passionately want to see local government for the people of Halton and Warrington provided by the people of Halton and Warrington. A classic example is the provision of social services and education. Those important local government services are delivered and managed locally and their democratic framework should be as close as possible to the people who use them. Unitary local government will achieve that aim.
Although we are approaching the point when the vision of unitary local government will become a reality in Halton and Warrington, the journey to that destination

was not all plain sailing. The three main political parties fought the last general election on the promise to introduce unitary local government. That was a central part of my campaign and that of my Liberal Democrat and Conservative opponents at the last general election.
When the Government set up the local government review under the auspices of the Local Government Commission, chaired by Sir John Banham, I had high hopes that a unitary structure of local government would emerge throughout the United Kingdom. I was still more confident that the first review would recommend unitary status for both Halton and Warrington. Both authorities have concentrated areas of population and cover new town areas.
The Runcorn new town and Warrington new town developments have strongly influenced the shape and character of the two boroughs in my constituency. Both boroughs have strong community interests and a sense of place. The current levels of population and population growth show clearly that the boroughs are large enough to take full advantage of unitary status. The geographical location of the two boroughs in the northern part of the county adjacent to the metropolitan unitary authorities of Knowsley, St. Helens, Wigan, Manchester and Trafford is significant in terms of structural planning.
Cheshire county council is preparing to privatise waste disposal operations, which will cause major problems in Warrington and Halton. The council should wait until the orders are passed and we have unitary local government in the two boroughs; the parties could then discuss a way forward that is beneficial to all and that does not put Warrington and Halton in a difficult position in terms of waste disposal.
Halton borough council is different from Warrington, as it has high levels of socio-economic deprivation. It also suffers from a serious labour market imbalance and economic decline. Economic regeneration is the key to a more prosperous future for the borough. I am delighted that the chamber of trade and commerce in Halton and the private sector are behind Halton's move to achieve unitary status. That is an important coalition of the private and public sectors which are working together in the interests of communities in my constituency.
The economic base in Warrington has weathered the recession better than other parts of the north-west. That is due to the success of Warrington and Runcorn development corporation and the economic development activities of Warrington borough council. The challenge for Warrington under unitary authority status is to continue to promote economic development and to expand and diversify the borough's economic base.
A good example of Warrington's proactive association with the private sector is the Business to Business exhibition that is held every year. It is a major event which expands trading links from my local authority into the north-west. I look forward to the unitary authority's achieving great things in the future to enhance the economic base in my constituency.
There was a strong belief that unitary status was tailor-made for the two boroughs as it would reinforce and enhance their development and provide for an exciting and productive future. It was regrettable that the Banham commission failed to recognise the obvious advantages of unitary local government for Halton and Warrington and recommended the status quo.
At this point, I must pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the Environment, to his right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). They determined that there should be a second review, which included Halton and Warrington, under the auspices of Sir David Cooksey. If it were not for the assistance of those on the two Front Benches, I am sure that the orders would not be before the House this afternoon. I thank both sides, on behalf of my local authorities, for their intervention.
It is fair to point out that the creation of unitary local authorities in Halton and in Warrington was not universally popular—far from it. It is a matter of public record that the two reviews conducted in Cheshire were not without their trials and tribulations. Cheshire county council fought tooth and nail against the proposal that Halton and Warrington receive unitary status. I shall not dwell on the council's discredited campaign to retain the two-tier system. However, I believe that the extraordinary amount of local taxpayers' money that it spent could and should have been used to improve service delivery.
One of the more bizarre episodes in the council's discredited campaign involved inviting so-called local opinion formers to a dinner held by the chair of the county council at a school in my constituency. The dinner was paid for with local taxpayers' money. I have written to Cheshire county council asking for a list of the people who were invited to the dinner, a list of those who attended and the cost of the dinner to county council tax payers. As Cheshire county council has a stated policy of
supporting open government and greater accountability in accordance with the Freedom of Information Campaign's objectives",
one would expect my request to receive a positive response. I have written to Cheshire county council six times seeking that information. It has refused to respond on five occasions and my last letter remains unanswered. I do not know what the council has to hide, nor do I know why it has decided to shroud in secrecy a simple matter of who was invited to a dinner and how much it cost. However, it seems to me that the refusal to supply a Member of Parliament—and a Cheshire council tax payer—with information is the action of a remote, unaccountable and undemocratic organisation that is not prepared even to pay lip service to its own policy of open government.

Mr. Miller: Although my constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston was not granted unitary authority status, we wish both Halton and Warrington well in their endeavours. I am sure that they will succeed. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks about a problem with which we are faced time and again when dealing with the county council. My hon. Friend referred to one particular issue, but there are others concerning social services and education. Will he comment on the difficulties that he has faced in those areas?

Mr. Hall: I largely agree with my hon. Friend. Suffice it to say that Cheshire county council's spending on

special needs is the second lowest in the country. I hope that the two unitary authorities will spend more on that aspect of education.
I have criticised Cheshire county council—now I will praise it, because it has accepted the recommendations and has issued, with Halton and Warrington borough councils, a joint declaration of commitment to a smooth transition of county-run services and to continuing to provide high-quality, cost-effective services to the people of Cheshire before and after the unitary authorities begin operating. That development and the recommendations are welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). The other Cheshire districts have also accepted that the two local authorities in the north of the county should have unitary status, and they are working together to bring that about.
As we come to the end of this long and winding road, the challenge for Halton and Warrington councils is to meet their promise to the people of those boroughs about the benefits of unitary local government—a concept that I support because I believe in the principles of democracy. Devolution is fundamental to strengthening our democratic processes. Halton and Warrington borough councils should not rest on their laurels on achieving unitary status but must devolve power within their communities. The local government review has aroused in both boroughs tensions and fears that must be addressed speedily and positively. Parish areas south of the Manchester ship canal in Warrington must be included at an early stage of planning for unitary status. Those areas have an important role to play in Warrington's joint future and their inclusion is essential if the best possible future for the borough is to be achieved.
One gesture that the council's ruling Labour group could make in that respect is to offer mayoralty to the opposition groups, which would cost nothing but go a long way towards building bridges in the whole borough—a gesture of political reconciliation which I strongly commend to my local authority.
I look forward to the elections to the shadow authority next May and to the implementation of the unitary authorities on 1 April 1998, and I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that all three reorganising councils have sufficient resources to enable them to deliver high-quality local government. I thank all the organisations that have supported the campaign in Warrington and Halton, and I reiterate that both councils must provide greater accountability, improve access to local services, and provide more convenient local government that responds better to local needs. Those are the challenges facing my two local authorities.

Sir Anthony Durant: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, on behalf of Conservative Members who represent Berkshire constituencies. Two of them—my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr. Watts) and for East Berkshire (Mr. MacKay)—are Ministers, so are unable to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) is heavily engaged in other duties, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) are in their places.
I do not know the position of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I understand that he favours the unitary authority for his constituency, but I am not sure of his attitude towards the county.
I strongly support the proposals before the House. I have always been in favour of unitary authorities, because I started my political life with one. Woking was a big urban district council and we had a lot more power in those days. I was chairman of its education committee, which gave powers to the local districts, and learned a lot from that experience. Reading was an extremely good county borough.
I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) that those of us with county boroughs in their constituencies much regretted their abolition. They provided a good service and offered high standards, and it was a pity that they disappeared. I am delighted that they are to return. People need to be near the services that they use. They want to know who is responsible for repairing a hole in the road or for allocating school places. At present, the public are confused.
I thank all those people who have worked in my county council—particularly the county councillors themselves. They have a good record and have worked extremely hard. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Berkshire will not lose its identity, and it will retain its lord lieutenant. However, Berkshire lost a lot of the county some time ago, including Abingdon. The white horse, which was once the symbol of Berkshire, was also lost in a previous reorganisation. I fought against a white horse candidate in one election, who wanted to return the white horse to Berkshire. He won about 300 votes and it was interesting to have him in the campaign.
A MORI poll found that only 11 per cent. of the people of Berkshire felt that they had any strong connection with the county, which is pretty low. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the county held some odd views. Initially, it joined the district in saying, "Yes, we want unitary authorities—so we will abolish ourselves." It subsequently took a U-turn, but no one has got to the bottom of the reason for that change of mind. Then it started a campaign and wasted a great deal of public money—all of it from council tax payers—going to court, the High Court and the House of Lords. All the letters that I have received about retaining the county council have arrived since that campaign started.
I made some disparaging remarks about county hall. Perhaps I may withdraw them and make it plain that I was expressing a personal view. It did win an architectural prize, which surprised me at the time. I was speaking for myself, not for everybody else in the county, when I said that the county hall was monstrous.
I accept that costs—there will be some—are an issue, but as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, one can produce any figures one wants, whatever the starting point. It is up to the unitary authorities to control their costs. It is not a matter of their saying, "We cannot do anything. We need a lot more money." The authorities already run many of the services, so I believe that they can keep costs well under control.

Sir Peter Hordern: Is my hon. Friend aware that, only today, Reading has confirmed that after the transitional period it expects to run the area more economically than at present?

Sir Anthony Durant: I have received the same communication from Reading district council, and we shall keep it to that pledge.
Concern has been expressed about voluntary and similar bodies. Berkshire districts have established liaison committees in advance of reorganisation, to cover planning and technical services, social services, 'the voluntary sector, community cultural services, emergency planning, trading standards, chief executives, finance officers, information technology, land and property, personnel and communications. The sad thing is that the county was originally involved in those liaison committees but withdrew when it started its campaign, which was equally a great pity.
One argument made in the county council's campaign was that the people of Berkshire had not been consulted. A letter from Purley parish council in my constituency states:
Only an authority that is totally out of touch with the people and unaware of what is going on could make such a statement. The public has been consulted extremely adequately … The Parish Council has no wish for its 'Local Government' to be run by a body that up until the last minute was saying it did not wish to put itself forward as a Unitary Authority, and was proposing its own dissolution. At the eleventh hour they changed their minds, and would not appear to be intent on their survival. This indecisive stance hardly inspires confidence for the future.
That expresses the irritation of one of my parish councils.
Unitary authorities are a sensible solution, and I believe that those in Berkshire will be successful. They already have a good history, and I wish the order well.

Mr. David Rendel: I regret that some of the speeches made so far in the debate seem to have concentrated on whether unitary authorities are a good thing as an issue of principle. We have had that debate on various occasions in the past; surely it is not the debate that we should be having today. This debate is about 10 orders that affect 10 areas, and whether they meet the requirements of those areas or whether they should be amended in some way and sent back for further consideration. That is what we should be dealing with and, at least for a large part of my speech, I intend to deal with those specific problems.
I realise that the Government and the Labour party are under the impression that they have effectively wrapped up the local government review and that there is little more to discuss. That is a pity, because there are some important points to be made. The fact that the Government and the official Opposition were so eager for 10 of these orders to be swept through the House in only three hours today—originally it was to have happened a week ago—is evidence enough of the low priority that both the Conservative party and the Labour party give local government.
We have three hours, which is only 18 minutes for each of 10 counties.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rendel: Let me get on a bit with my speech; I have only started.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rendel: No; I am going on with my speech.
That would never be enough time for all the hon. Members whose local authorities are affected to have their say. I understand that many of them do not wish to have a say. That is up to them. I am surprised, however, that sufficient time was not allowed for all hon. Members to have a say if they so wished.
We have 18 minutes to decide on the education of thousands of children. We have 18 minutes to decide about the care of the elderly and about the implications for fire services, the police and all the other local services that will be affected by these orders. We have 18 minutes for, perhaps on average, the eight hon. Members in each of those counties, not including the time required by the Minister to make his proposals and for the Opposition spokespersons to reply. That compares with the full one and a half hours of debate that was allowed for each of the first round of counties that were dealt with two years ago.

Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman recalls that he was given 30 minutes in a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to tell us whether he was in favour of or against unitary authorities for the rest of Berkshire. During all that time, he refused to answer a direct question, which I shall ask him again now: is he or is he not in favour of unitary status for the other districts of Berkshire, or does he have a view only on Newbury?

Mr. Rendel: The Secretary of State is anticipating my speech; I will be dealing with Berkshire in a few moments. I shall of course let him know my views, because he has asked for them. They are in my speech, and I shall provide that information shortly.
Apparently, the Liberal Democrats take local government more seriously than do the Tory party and the Labour party. I make no apology if the Labour party and the Tory party now feel that we are spoiling their party.
The local government review has been a shambles from beginning to end, and today's orders demonstrate how arbitrary the process has been. Some areas have been selected for unitary status against the wishes of the local people, who want to maintain the present structure. Other areas—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Which?"] I shall go through individual areas shortly. Other areas have been left alone, despite local people's clear wish for change.
Running roughshod over local people's views when making what amounts to constitutional change is a recipe for disaster. The main reason for our having yet another review of local government structures is that ignoring local people's wishes did not work in Avon, in Cleveland or in Humberside in the 1970s. It will not work any better now.

Mr. Allason: As the hon. Gentleman is so determined to demonstrate the commitment of the Liberals to local government, would he like to tell the House where is the

rest of his party? He has been the sole Liberal Democrat in the Chamber for most of this debate, although now there are two.

Hon. Members: Three.

Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman may like to comment on the proportion of hon. Members in my party who are in the Chamber as compared with the proportion of hon. Members in his party who are here.
Because profound changes are being made to the structure of local democracy, and because of the manner in which it is being done, at the very least the Government should have listened to the express views of the general public, but they simply have not listened. They have conducted a prejudiced and sometimes—as has been proved—illegal review.
The Labour party, because of its desire to boost the power of its urban fiefdoms, has colluded with the Government at every step of the way—not, I hasten to add, in an open and co-operative consultation, but behind closed doors and in smoke-filled rooms. Recently, some Labour Members have shown their distaste for Labour Front Benchers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could remind the House whether it is in order for hon. Members to read their speeches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not in order to read speeches, but it is in order to use notes copiously.

Mr. Rendel: I am sure that, if the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) would like to see the notes that I am working from and compare them with Hansard, he would find that there are many differences.
Some Labour Members have shown their distaste for Labour Front Benchers bending towards the Conservative agenda in recent days. In this case, of course, the Labour Opposition and the Conservative Government have plotted and schemed together in the most cosy fashion, and yet we have heard nothing from those Labour dissenters. I wonder why not? Surely they have not lost their voices already—or perhaps the Hartlepool cat has cut out their tongues?
The underlying problem that has bedeviled the review from its inception is that no real thought was given to the fundamental role and purpose of local government. That was the problem. How can a serious review of the structure of a tier of local government be held without first deciding what that level should be doing and what its powers and responsibilities should be? The issues have simply not been addressed in this review. Because of that, judging which orders should be supported, which should be opposed and which are so controversial that they should be forced to a Division today has been made much more difficult.
Even determining what local people want has not been an entirely straightforward matter. Much of the public consultation that has taken place occurred some time ago—much of it as long ago as 1994. Even then, there was often a stark difference between the direct responses given to the commission and the results of MORI opinion poll testing.
Another important consideration in all these matters is the cost of any change. Previous examples of restructuring have shown that costs always seem to be higher than is expected, which must be a further argument against change where it is not properly supported. That is true not only of the changes implemented in the 1970s and 1980s, but—as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has already pointed out—of the latest round of proposed unitary changes and of the changes that have already been made in this structure review. The case must therefore be very strong for consulting local people again—now that we have the Government's final proposals—in those areas that were originally considered under the first review.
It is a shame that the Government have not felt it necessary to carry out that further consultation. We must make do with the information at our disposal—the analysis of the direct responses by National Opinion Polls, the MORI polls and the range of submissions to our offices by local people and by their elected representatives. On that basis, I shall now make some comments on each of the orders before us. The orders for Hereford and Worcester, for Devon, for Essex and for Lancashire are the least controversial.

Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman apologise for misleading listeners to BBC radio in Hereford and Worcester last week, when he told them that the local Liberal party had called for unitary authorities in Worcestershire, whereas in fact they fought the idea tooth and nail while the Conservatives, sadly unsuccessfully, argued for them?

Mr. Rendel: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I would certainly like to apologise if I had said anything wrong on the radio, but I am not aware of having done so, and I would require further particulars first.
As I said, the orders for Hereford and Worcester, for Devon, for Essex and for Lancashire are the least controversial. There is a strong case for separating Herefordshire from Worcestershire. Such a move would be in line with the history of each area, and clearly has the support of local people. The option of no change was not included in the direct consultation that took place at the beginning of the review, but 92 per cent. of respondents supported an option that included a unitary Hereford. The MORI poll found that supporters of a unitary option outnumbered the proponents of the status quo by about two to one.
In Devon, the case for unitary authorities for Plymouth and for Torbay has always received strong support.

Mr. Allason: Then why is the hon. Gentleman proposing to vote against it?

Mr. Rendel: I did not say that I would vote against it.
A unitary Plymouth has near universal support throughout Devon. Plymouth is a large city, with problems and challenges different from those in the rest of the county. However, there must be one concern—that at least as much support was shown for a unitary authority in Exeter as in Torbay.

Mr. Allason: Nonsense.

Mr. Rendel: The people of Torbay have their wish, and the people of Exeter do not.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rendel: Yes, but this is the last time that I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Allason: May I remind the hon. Gentleman—remind him, that is, if he has the slightest knowledge of Devon—that the Torbay consultation had the second highest percentage return in the country? In the first consultation exercise, Exeter demonstrated complete apathy, and no interest whatever in unitary status. Only the second time round was there some local feeling in favour of unitary status. As a result, there was a further review, which decided, rightly, that there was not sufficient local support for unitary status. The fact that the hon. Gentleman puts Torbay and Exeter in the same bag demonstrates his complete ignorance of everything west of Bristol.

Mr. Rendel: I understand that the concern of the Local Government Commission is that Exeter is an important county centre—certainly that is a reasonable argument—but similar arguments could have been, and in some cases were, advanced for other areas, such as Leicester, Stoke-on-Trent and several other cities.
The somewhat arbitrary nature of the review process, and the failure to match the proposals to the public will, is clearly highlighted in the Devon order. The Government have also ignored the fears of the people of South Hams that they will be squeezed between the two unitary authorities of Torbay and Plymouth, which lie on either side of it.
The Essex proposals that I want to discuss relate mainly to Thurrock and Southend. In the direct responses—sadly, those too are old data from 1994—the public in Thurrock supported a unitary authority, not by a huge majority, but by 41 per cent. as opposed to 35 per cent. In Southend, there was a higher level of support for a unitary authority—61 per cent. to 36 per cent. The MORI poll in Thurrock found a small majority in favour—43 per cent. to 39 per cent. That may not be especially significant, but in Southend it found a rather bigger majority—41 per cent. to 24 per cent.—in favour of at least some modified form of two-tier system plus a unitary Southend.
In the rest of the county, support was not good, with 33 per cent., as opposed to 19 per cent., favouring the status quo. I have two further points to make about the order for Essex, because the Government have missed two opportunities. In Southend, the new unitary authority has only 39 councillors, and it is clear that local feeling is that that is not enough to cover all the new functions.
The second point is about Billericay, which has not been formed into a new joint authority with Brentwood, although there is considerable local support for that idea. That is another missed opportunity, which 1 he Government would have done well to seize.
The plans for Berkshire are a tragedy, because there was a really good solution for the county, which was proposed at an early stage and widely supported—by the county council as much as by anybody else, as has already


been said. That solution would have been supported not only by the county but by all the districts and by the vast majority of the people of Berkshire.
The solution would have been to create four unitary authorities, one each for the districts of Newbury, Slough and Reading, and another to cover the rest of the area. It would have been widely supported, and to my mind was much the best solution. Unfortunately, at that point, the right hon. Member for Wokingham put his oar in and started to insist on a separate unitary authority for Wokingham—an idea that even the recently elected district council there, which is more sensible, has now rejected.
First we moved to five unitary authorities for Berkshire, then, finally, the Secretary of State decided that we should go for all six, and turn all the current district council areas into unitary authorities. That solution has never been put out to proper public consultation. It was never part of the original consultation process.
The direct responses to the original proposals showed little support for the idea of no change. There was considerable support for unitary authorities in Berkshire, and I am sure that there still is. When the MORI poll was taken, there was still strong support for the Newbury area, in particular, to become a unitary authority, and considerable support, although rather less than in Newbury, in some other parts of Berkshire.
The whole thing has become a dreadful mess. For Reading, Slough and Newbury, the solution is much the same as it was always intended to be, apart from minor changes to some of the boundaries. I am sure that we all wish to support those new unitary authorities, but the mess that has been made of the rest of Berkshire as a result of the intervention of some of the Conservative Members involved cannot be supported by the House.

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is such a mess to have a unitary authority in Wokingham, but it is not a mess to have a unitary authority in Newbury? If the arrangement is so clearly a mess, will he explain why, during the 30 minutes that he spent with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, although he was invited every two minutes or so to tell us about it, he did not do so, but has left it until now to come and tell us about it? Why has he been so slow, so trappist, in his views on Berkshire, when he is so ready to judge everywhere else in the country, which he has not visited?

Mr. Rendel: I am delighted to reply to the Secretary of State. On that occasion, I was part of a delegation from the local area and, as Newbury's Member of Parliament, I had come to talk about what should be done for Newbury. That is why I responded as I did.

Mr. Gummer: Why is it a mess to have a single unitary authority for Wokingham, which has 150,000 people, but not a mess to have one for Newbury, which has 141,000 people? Why, when the councillors who came with the hon. Gentleman to the meeting about Newbury urged him to tell my right hon. Friend about his

views on the rest of the county, did he refuse to do what they wanted? In the end, they were almost as bemused as my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Rendel: I find it quite extraordinary that the Secretary of State should regard the number of people in a particular unitary authority as the relevant criterion, as I understand that a unitary authority of only 30,000 was recently created—very much smaller than Newbury or Wokingham. The point is not the number of people in the area, but whether the area hangs together as a sensible, viable unitary authority area. That is the question to which we must respond. It is quite clear that, whereas Newbury feels strongly that it is part of a whole, the same is not true of Wokingham, which contains large parts of what in effect are the suburbs of Reading, as well as areas that are much more countrified.

Mr. Redwood: I thought that we might hear a fuller explanation of the hon. Gentleman's views on Berkshire, but I see that he does not have any formed views on Berkshire even to this day.
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that Wokingham and Bracknell, with Windsor and Maidenhead, would make a single area that wanted to be governed together? I can tell him that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in neighbouring constituencies know that that is not the view of our electorate, and we have represented their views.

Mr. Rendel: I am delighted to hear that that is the right hon. Gentleman's view of what his electorate thinks, but he may take a different view when they begin to turn against him, as I am sure they rapidly will if the proposal goes ahead at his behest.
What is wanted in Nottingham—this is the difficulty with this order—is not what is wanted in the rest of the county, which is one of the great problems with the Government's cherry picking solution to the local government review. Nottingham's direct responses to the commission showed that there was no clear call for unitaries, but there was strong support for no change. The MORI opinion poll showed that, in the county as a whole, 20 per cent. supported the unitary city, 35 per cent. supported no change and 45 per cent. supported something else. In the city itself, there was marginal support for a unitary authority to be set up—24 per cent. as against 21 per cent. for no change—but 55 per cent. supported something else. It is significant that, in this case, the further we have gone, and the more time we have taken over the review, the more people seem to have turned against the solution currently proposed by the Government.
For Cambridgeshire, the direct responses from Peterborough showed that only 19 per cent. were in favour of a unitary city, while 71 per cent. were in favour of no change. Even the MORI opinion poll showed that, in the city of Peterborough, only some 40 per cent. were in favour of a unitary city and 40 per cent. were against it, while in the rest of the county it was 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. in favour of the status quo. It is true to say, however, that it would be a viable unitary authority—it hangs together in a way in which the unitary authority of Wokingham does not—and it is not central to Cambridgeshire, which is a further important point.
Indeed, Peterborough city council fully supports this order, so there are some good reasons for allowing it to go through.
In Cheshire, the direct responses were interesting. Organisations in Halton were some 2:1 in favour of a unitary Halton, but organisations in Warrington were 4:3 against. In the rest of the county, some 7:1 responses from organisations were against—a much stronger feeling. Direct responses from the public in Halton were 2:1 against. In Warrington, they were 3:1 against—getting stronger. In the rest of the county, 95 per cent. were against. The MORI opinion poll shows that, in Halton, there was marginal support for the unitary authority—39 per cent. to 34 per cent. In Warrington, people were against it by a similar majority—41 per cent. to 33 per cent. En the rest of the county, they were 2:1 against.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a number of hon. Members who wish to speak have been told that they cannot be included because so many hon. Members have already asked to speak, is it in order for the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to go on and on, covering the whole country in this rather tedious and irrelevant way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in order so far.

Mr. Rendel: I fear that the hon. Gentleman missed what I said on that very point at the start of my speech: three hours is not sufficient time for adequate debate. If he wished for more, he could have asked for more. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Tedious repetition is not in order.

Mr. Rendel: I am not quite clear what that remark refers to.
In Cheshire, there is clearly no real support for the Government's proposals, and they should therefore be turned down by the House.

Mr. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in Cheshire, the Liberal Democrats were party to the campaign run by the county council, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) referred, at extraordinary cost to the county ratepayer? How does he justify that expenditure? It makes Lancashire look quite small as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Rendel: If there were not so many interventions, I might be able to finish my speech rather sooner and thus help the hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan).
A number of counties and district authorities throughout the country have felt that, in the best interests of their council tax payers, they should put their point of view as forcefully as they can to encourage a decision that they consider right for their electorates.

Mr. Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rendel: One last time, but then I really must get on.

Mr. Hall: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why the controlling group—Tory and Liberal—on Cheshire county council now supports the orders before us, yet the hon. Gentleman is trying to advise the House to vote against them.

Mr. Rendel: I do not necessarily agree with everything that the Tories or the Liberal Democrats say in different parts of the county about the local government review—[Interruption.]—because all parties are split on this issue. The Labour party is split. The Tory party is split, and. to some extent, our party is also split. [Interruption.] It is not a party political matter; it is a matter for the House to decide, in the best interests of the people of this country. The hon. Gentleman should know that.
Shropshire is a particularly interesting case, because one Conservative Member of Parliament is quite openly against the Government's proposals and has put that on the record. The direct responses from organisations and the public in The Wrekin—not in Shropshire as a whole—were marginally in favour of The Wrekin becoming a unitary authority, but in the rest of the county the figures were some 20:1 against. I notice that the Secretary of State keeps harping on about MORI polls as though they were unimportant. If they are so unimportant, why did he ensure that they were taken in each county?

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The hon. Gentleman really must give way.

Mr. Rendel: I am sorry. I have given way enough.
As far as The Wrekin is concerned, the MORI polls—the House will be pleased to learn—showed that people were in favour, by 45 per cent. to 38 per cent. That is not a huge amount; it is a marginal vote in favour but, once again, in the rest of the county, we see that this proposal is widely disliked.

Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on The Wrekin?

Mr. Rendel: Yes.

Mr. Grocott: Having confirmed that the MORI poll in The Wrekin showed that the majority of those who responded were in favour of unitary local government for The Wrekin, will he explain whether is it Liberal policy to support the minority position? We know that the Liberals support an electoral system that would give massively disproportionate power to minorities, but it is their local government policy to listen to the minority and impose a local government structure selected by the minority?

Mr. Rendel: As the hon. Gentleman ought to have realised, in these matters there are always two types of opinion to listen to. One is the opinion from within the area concerned and the other is the opinion of people who live in the rest of the county who are equally affected. If their opinions are to be overridden as a result of an hon. Member's opinion, as we have just heard, taking into account only the district authority that is to be made into a unitary authority, frankly it would not be democratic. It is clear that the effect on the rest of Shropshire will be so damaging that the unitary authority order should not go through.
I turn finally to Kent. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The direct responses in Kent showed an enormous abhorrence for what was going on. In Gillingham, just 5 per cent. were in favour, and 76 per cent. wanted no change. In Rochester, the number of those in favour was as high as 7 per cent., but 69 per cent. were in favour of no change. The MORI opinion polls showed that, in Gillingham, 63 per cent. and, in Rochester, 53 per cent. wanted no change. In both areas, a mere 30 per cent. of people were in favour of the Government's proposals. It would be absurd to go ahead with such an order when there is such a huge volume of local opinion against what the Government are proposing.
Finally, I shall return to one or two more general points about the 10 orders. In his response to a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment in March last year, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said:
On behalf of the Labour party, I welcome much of the statement, and thank the Secretary of State for the discussions which preceded it. The overall effect of what he has announced should deliver much of what we have been calling for."—[Official Report, 2 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1185.]
It has been clear throughout the second tranche of the review that we are facing a Lab-Con pact between the Labour and Conservative parties, which has been stitched up in a back room without anyone else being allowed to have a say. That important point has to be brought out now.

Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, first, there was nothing secret? Of necessity, the list that was put back before the Local Government Commission was made public. People discussed it, made representations about it, and it was changed as a result of those representations. Secondly, does he recognise that if the Secretary of State and I had not got together, quite a few authorities that are gaining independence as a result of the orders would not have done so? Since the vast majority of people in those areas and their councils want independence, is it not about time that he shut up and let a few hon. Members who represent those areas speak up for them?

Mr. Rendel: It is true that, in some of the areas, there is local support for the proposals, but in other areas, as I have clearly demonstrated, there is no such local support. What is important about my speech is that, sadly, my party is the only one in the House that is prepared to stand up against the Lab-Con pact, which is destroying local government in certain parts of our country.

Mr. Gummer: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I asked him whether he would explain to my right hon. Friend the Minister his views merely on Berkshire. He could not give any views on Berkshire. A pact with the Liberal party was impossible because it did not know where it was going on Berkshire. He complains that he is not listened to, but when he was asked for his opinion, he did not have one. When the rest of the Liberals were asked for their opinions, they had so many that one could not agree with them on any of them. The only thing that his speech has proved is that if one cannot vote Conservative, for God's sake one should not vote Liberal.

Mr. Rendel: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rendel: You made a remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about pointless repetition. I assume that you were referring to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to say that I was referring to the hon. Gentleman, and very specifically at that point.

Mr. Rendel: In local government, as in so many other areas nowadays, what is emerging is not so much new Labour but new Tories. The slogan that the British people should fear is not "New Labour, New Danger", but "Old Tories, Old Danger; New Tories, New Danger". The motive shared by the Labour and Conservative parties is clear for all to see. All they are interested in is dividing the country into what they expect to be one-party fiefdoms—towns and cities set up as unitaries to be controlled by Labour, and the surrounding shire counties to be controlled by the Conservatives. In each they hope that any serious opposition from their traditional opponents will fade.
In fact, Labour and the Conservatives are both making a terrible mistake. They have failed to understand, as have so many in the media, that the traditional division of local authorities between the Tory and Labour parties is no more. Although they are splitting the country into areas that they think are natural Tory and Labour areas, in practice they are simply playing into our hands. What will happen is this: in the new town and city unitaries, the Liberal Democrats, as in so many areas already, will be the only opposition to Labour. We shall be able to concentrate our fire on one front instead of two.
Similarly, in the surrounding shire areas, the Liberal Democrats will be, as so often we are already, the only opponents to the Tories. There, too, we shall be able to concentrate our fire in one direction. In an attempt to improve their own electoral fortunes by carving out local authorities where they feel that they can guarantee to retain control, the Labour and Conservative parties are, in practice, playing into our hands. Their gerrymandering will be to our benefit.
The review is finally coming to a close, which will be a great relief to all those involved in local government. Perhaps now, all local authorities can get on with the business of providing high-quality, value-for-money services, which, after all, is what they are there for. Perhaps now, local authorities can set about rebuilding staff morale, which has been shattered by year after year of uncertainty—sadly nowhere more so than in Berkshire.
Although the end of the review is a relief, it leaves all those who are concerned for local democracy with a profound sense of disappointment. Local democracy needs revitalising and rebuilding. Imaginative proposals for structural change and the devolution of power will, of course, feature in such a process, but the cause has been greatly damaged by the review, which was prejudicial and pursued ideological ends towards limited local government.
The task of making positive changes, improvements and enhancements to local government has been made much more difficult. All future discussion of how such


structures should be matched to the responsibilities, duties and powers of local authorities will be limited by the bad experience of the review. It leaves a legacy of which the Government should be ashamed. They have set back the cause of local democracy by decades. A number of the orders should certainly be opposed, and I shall be calling on the House to oppose them. I hope that not only the Liberal Democrats support the cause of local democracy in this House.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: In all my 22 years in the House, I have never heard a speech quite like that of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The House will be relieved to know that I will not trudge relentlessly around the countryside into areas that I do or do not know, making comments that put up hackles in virtually every part of the House. In his peroration—when it finally came—the hon. Gentleman threatened me and my local government colleagues with "concentrated fire", but his speech was an advertisement for the sort of concentrated fire that we can expect. He may regard himself as some kind of weapon of war, but he has a wonderful facility for self-detonation.
In comparison, I wish to pay a compliment to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) have been pursuing him on this matter for about a year, and he has always been kind and considerate in his responses. I congratulate him on the orders, because he has had to deal with all the uncertainty that existed locally. In reverting finally to the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury, let me say that we saw a method of attacking the political enemy in the principal speech, and subsequent intervention, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that brought smiles to every face—bar one hon. Member, for whom it was too much of an effort to smile. My right hon. Friend showed an elegance of touch that is all too lacking in the House, and I pay tribute to him.
My main point, on which I shall speak briefly, concerns finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford cannot be here because of parliamentary business, but I know that he would wish to join me in my remarks. I shall make many parts of my speech on behalf of us both, as I will address myself to the Hereford and Worcester order. The financing of the new county of Hereford is important, because it relates to the financing of all rural areas under the new arrangements. Although that matter has yet to be touched on directly, I hope that those on both Government and Opposition Front Benches will do so during their winding-up speeches.
It is extremely expensive to deliver local government services in rural areas, and the re-creation of the county of Herefordshire will need funding. The background to this matter is the 1971–72 local government amalgamation of Hereford and Worcester, which was an intensive political issue locally and caused considerable political fall-out. I almost lost my seat as a result of it. The reasons for that fallout—those which were financial—are relevant to the present and to the future. At that time, Herefordshire was not financially viable on its own, and was requiring some 70 per cent. rate support grant. The county did not have a sufficient financial base to deliver services, particularly with the increasing expense of providing services to a very rural county.
The combination with Worcestershire worked, and I want to put on record the fact that I am the only Hereford and Worcester Member of Parliament in the literal sense—I am the only cross-border Member, whose constituency is in the old counties of Herefordshire and of Worcestershire. I have represented both areas for a considerable number of years, and I know that the financial guardianship of Worcestershire has been useful and beneficial. That leads me to deal with the central point of the debate—the change to unitary status and the problems that could arise. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, I must say that the change is welcome, as Herefordshire is a cohesive and natural county. There are no problems, other than financial ones, with the re-creation of Herefordshire.
Delivering services is expensive because the county covers many hundreds of square miles, and is as big as Worcestershire, but with one fifth of the population. We have more roads than Worcestershire and we must pay for them. The cost of delivering social services is enormous by comparison with the more urban counties. I appreciate that I will not get an undertaking at this stage, but I ask that some acknowledgment of those problems be made by those on both the Government and Opposition Front Benches. I speak for wider areas than just Herefordshire and Worcestershire—I am speaking, at least, for the whole of rural England on the future assessment of Government support for rural areas.
Bearing in mind that there is a capping limit to what we can spend, we must remember that services could suffer if we do not have a big financial base and we need to know that those matters will be taken into consideration. After all my time here, I am conscious that a slight twitch on the tiller by the Government can cause a considerable difference to local government.
I had been a Member of the House for only five months when I was in a motor car in Leominster with a placard, shouting at a Government Minister who is now a much-loved Member of the House. For the only time in my life—I had never done it before, nor have I done it since—I was shouting repeatedly, "Oakes out, Oakes out". That was because of the difference in the rate support grant wrought upon the original settlement by the incoming Labour Government. This is not a partisan matter, however, and I welcome the concordat across the Floor of the House on the matter.
The next Government—of whatever colour or formed from whatever party or parties—must look after the county of Herefordshire and the other rural counties, otherwise the change will not work. We say thank you for giving our county back, but without Government support, we cannot afford it.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: It is an unusual pleasure for me to be able to speak enthusiastically in support of a local government order from this Government. In my case, it is more than 17 years since I stood up in the House to support a Government order affecting local government. I hope that this will be good practice for me, as I look forward to supporting repeatedly local government orders presented by the Government after the next election.
There has been a long ride, and a roller-coaster. The original Local Government Commission's proposal for The Wrekin recommended the status quo but finally—after many meetings—we have reached the recommendation that is before us today. I speak as a long and enthusiastic admirer of the traditions of English local government. At various times, I have worked as an officer, a councillor and a committee chairman in local government. I believe strongly that democracy should come from the bottom up, and without strong local democracy, it is unlikely that we can have a healthy national democracy.
I welcome the orders generally, but particularly the order applying to The Wrekin. My reasons for supporting unitary local government have been rehearsed in the House, and I shall mention them briefly. The first and most obvious point is that all local authority services are closely interrelated—most obviously, housing and social services. It does not make sense that housing should be in the hands of one authority while social services are in another. Education is another obvious example that relates to many other local government services.
We all know that, in practice, people look for a solution not to a particular local authority but rather to local government generally. I happen to believe that, in any democracy, local government ought to be intelligible. One of the many tables in the original Local Government Commission report showed the split of functions between district and county councils. For example, county councils' transport functions included public transport; highways and parking; traffic management; footpaths and bridleways; and transport planning. District councils' transport functions included unclassified roads; off-street car parking; footpaths and bridleways; and street lighting. That is unintelligible to most members of the public. Indeed, I heard a member of the original Local Government Commission say at the annual meeting of the Shropshire Association of Town and Parish Councils that he had found in practice that many local government officers did not always understand the distinctions between the different tiers of local government.
I strongly support unitary local government, particularly in my area of The Wrekin. When people come to see me at my advice bureaux—this must be the experience of other Members—they want a solution to the problem. They are often baffled by the boundaries between the two local authorities, but they look for a solution to the most local of the local authorities and are much more likely to hold The Wrekin district council responsible for resolving local problems and providing local services.
Briefly, I shall spell out The Wrekin's case. We now have a population of 145,000 and it is estimated to reach 155,000 by 2001. Between 1971 and 1991, we were the fastest growing district in the west midlands. We are by far the largest district in that area without unitary powers. We are bigger than 13 of the towns that have already been given unitary status.
Just as important as population size, however, is the distinctive character and identity of The Wrekin. It is famous as the birthplace of the industrial revolution. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I will not give them a history lesson, but will simply say that few hon.

Members will not know of the iron bridge and Ironbridge gorge museum, which is known not merely nationally but internationally.
The real growth in the area came in 1968, with the establishment of Telford development corporation, which brought together a number of towns and communities with distinct and rich histories: Madeley, with its record of coal mining going back to the 14th century; Dawley, again with centuries of mining tradition; the ancient market town of Wellington, which has been a market since the 13th century; Oakengates, with its historic base in mining and manufacturing; Hadley, with its manufacturing traditions; and Donnington, with its long experience of employment in the defence industry.
The new town of Telford and the nearby Norman town of Newport, together with the surrounding rural area, comprise The Wrekin local authority, which we are debating. In its draft recommendations, the Local Government Commission spells out our distinctiveness, saying:
The Wrekin's strong community identity is markedly different from the rest of Shropshire. The urban area of Telford is a major growth area for the West Midlands and its needs, in relation to socio-economic and development criteria, are very different to the needs of rural Shropshire. The Wrekin is largely self-contained for employment and leisure. The rural part of the district is connected strongly to Telford.
The commission continues—and I agree—
The present structure of local government in Shropshire is inherently unstable, with considerable divergence of interests between The Wrekin and the rest of Shropshire. The Wrekin will continue to grow and would benefit from unitary status in achieving its full identity as a place, whilst Shropshire County Council could focus on the distinctive needs of the rest of the County.
We are in no doubt that our distinctive history and character and the rapid growth of the past 25 years mean that the time is right for us to run our own range of local services.
I must mention the strength of local support and one or two of the organisations that have been particularly helpful in our attainment of unitary status. First, I must emphasise the consistent all-party political support. I have been on several delegations to a range of Ministers, always with the leaders of the main political parties, and I pay tribute to them for the support that they have consistently given. There has also been strong support from industry and commerce. It is not surprising, as the area is a major growth area, not merely for the county but for the west midlands region, that the Shropshire Chamber of Industry and Commerce has said:
the primary reason for adopting unitary status …is that of economic development".
There has been strong support from business groups and organisations. One local managing director said:
dealing with one local authority—who will provide the full range of services—will be of significant benefit to local business, this is particularly the case for strategic services which have a very local impact such as planning, minerals extraction and waste disposal".
There has also been tremendous support from religious, voluntary and leisure groups—including the Telford Christian Council; the Telford Community Council; the Telford West Indian Association; the Trades Council; the Oakengates Sikh temple; the citizens advice bureaux; the credit unions; the Punjabi Cultural Society—and pensioners' groups—including the Telford Pensioners Action Group and The Wrekin Pensioners Forum. There


has also been support from sporting organisations, including Telford United football club, the Telford athletics club and the Lilleshall sports centre.
There has been backing from the health service, which is important. A spokesman for the Princess Royal Hospital trust said that a unitary authority would:
enhance the integration of all forms of social care locally".
The spokesman also said that a unitary system of local government presents an exciting prospect that will drive local partnerships forward and add value to health service delivery.
We have also had the crucial support of the parish councils. Their involvement and co-operation will be essential in making the new system of local government work, and their support has been overwhelming. There have been many submissions from town and parish councils, but I will mention only that of Oakengates, which said that unitary local government would
lead to improvement in the quality and co-ordination of services with clear objectives and policies with no competition and overlap".

Mr. Keith Vaz: As my hon. Friend knows, I visited The Wrekin a few weeks ago. He is one of the most modest Members in the House. It would not be right for us to proceed after that long list of organisations and individuals who argued for unitary status for The Wrekin without the House noting his support and hard work and the intelligent way in which he championed The Wrekin's cause, which made the Secretary of State review his decision and allow unitary status to proceed. The House should note his immense contribution to that task.

Mr. Grocott: What a glowing tribute. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
When a change of this importance is proposed, opposition is inevitable. Not unnaturally, the county council has opposed the change because councillors and officers are rightly proud of the many ways in which they have served the whole community for so many years. I pay tribute to the work of the county council. My support for a unitary Wrekin is not a criticism of that council, but a recognition that time has moved on, The Wrekin has grown and developed and, like all other districts of comparable size and in keeping with the traditions of English local government, we have earned the right to run our own affairs.
I have described unitary status for The Wrekin as a coming of age. There was never a coming of age without an occasional backward glance, but the move is inevitable and right and I am certain that it is in the best interests of The Wrekin and the county of Shropshire. I am also confident—this is important—that now that the debate on reorganisation is coming to a close, the county and the district, both councillors and officers, will work together for a smooth transition and with a determination to make the new system work for the benefit of all of us.
I have been pleased to work with officers of The Wrekin council and councillors of all political parties to achieve the unitary status that is enshrined in the order. I have great confidence that between us we have the skills, commitment and enthusiasm to meet the very exciting challenge and opportunity that are being given to us with the right to run locally the whole range of local

government services. I am proud to be the Member of Parliament at a time of such significant and important advance in the long, rich history of The Wrekin.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House, particularly on the third order on the Order Paper. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for providing such classic, knockabout cabaret entertainment. Whoever said that local government was boring? His blundering ignorance—wandering around the country, irritating every part of the compass—was breathtakingly astonishing. Even his two colleagues, who, of course, he could not see behind him—the two who came in to support him—were cringing. I am delighted to thank him in one regard. I am fairly confident that he will have organised a defection from his own party. The leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Torbay borough council is in the Gallery and I have no doubt that he will want to make some kind of a declaration—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the House is what is before us. There is no such thing as a Gallery as far as the Chamber is concerned.

Mr. Allason: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I am confident that, somewhere in the House, there will be a defection based on that performance.
I pay tribute to the principle behind the order. I became convinced of the principle of unitary authorities back in 1977, when I stood for what was then the Greater London council and, having discovered precisely what its responsibilities were, was appalled. I told Conservative central office that the best platform for me to stand on was abolition of the GLC. Clearly, I was prescient because central office said then that that was out of the question because the GLC was essential.
There is a considerable difference between the responsibilities of the two tiers of local government which is often lost on the general public. It is sometimes difficult to explain it. I have always believed, based on my experience in 1977, in one-stop local authorities.
Torbay is a distinctive community, quite separate from the rest of Devon. Curiously, it has relatively few Devonians or born Torquinians and Paigntonians. The editor of the Western Morning News once remarked that he could probably sell more copies of The Birmingham Post in Torbay than he could of his newspaper. That is because it is a delightful part of the country and many people wish to live and retire there; they are very welcome. However, that makes Torbay distinct from the rest of the county—a fact that was not initially acknowledged by the Banham commission.
The public response in the bay to the first three options in the report, which did not give Torbay unitary status, was universal dismay. An impressive campaign was mounted by the people of Torbay. The initiative came not from the local authority but from the business community, from the grass roots, from all three political parties and from numerous other organisations which joined together to form Torbay United.
The cost to the local authority of the campaign was minimal. I participated in it on the single condition that it would not be a waste of council tax payer's money. It is right that I should pay tribute to the town clerk and chief executive of Torbay borough council. I understand that he is not in the Gallery because there is not one, but I think that he is quite close by.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that other hon. Members wish to speak on the orders. I would be grateful if he would attend to them and nothing else.

Mr. Allason: I will be as brief as I can, but I must say that time was exhausted by the hon. Member for Newbury.
The issue is the future of Torbay and, in particular, of education there. I do not want its unitary authority to be an exercise in empire building. I want no repetition of what happened in the early 1970s when identical jobs were re-advertised and the same people took the same posts but at greater salaries. That reorganisation is generally regarded as having been a mistake. Local people will be vigilant to ensure that such empire building does not happen again.
The relationship between local schools and their democratically elected representatives has, to some extent, broken down in Torbay. I conducted a survey to establish the depth of the breach, and I am concerned that some schools are not aware of the name of their county councillor. They have not been visited by their borough councillors. According to the Rev. Brian Prothero, his councillor turns up only to vote against any suggestion of grant-maintained status. The future of Torbay's children and their education must be paramount, because that is where the largest amount of money will be spent by the new authority.
I am concerned that the transitional committee that considered education decided on a 32-strong education committee. In its final report, there was no statement to preserve excellence or guarantee the future of the three grammar schools, which are remarkable centres of excellence. There was no commitment to focus resources on children rather than administration. The new authority must concentrate on the delivery of high-quality services. Torbay has been disadvantaged in the past by Devon's education authority. A couple of schools in my constituency bear eloquent testimony to the fact that they have been starved of resources over several years.
Many pledges have been made about what the future holds for the unitary authority in Torbay. I welcome the order; I have worked hard to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to include Torbay. I, the council tax payers of Torbay, the business community, the borough council and all three local political parties welcome it. I give this warning: the people of Torbay will be vigilant. They know the promises that have been made about future council tax levels. Nevertheless, I urge the House to pass the order.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to speak in this debate. I shall be as swift as possible. The Liberal spokesperson showed unprecedented selfishness.

I regret that the Leader of the House did not meet my request, and that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), for more time. If we were dealing with Scottish legislation, we would not have had one day but a Bill with a Committee stage. Such treatment makes the House of Commons seem a sham in dealing with the interests of millions of people.
My borough of Thurrock will be proud to have the orders passed: 84 per cent. of its people recognise that they are part of the borough, which is an important part of Essex. It will remain part of the county of Essex, as the Secretary of State said. However, we are keen to have our independence of county hall, Chelmsford for a variety of reasons. We believe that local government services should be locally based. Chelmsford county hall is sometimes a million miles away from the people and interests of Thurrock, although I pay respect to the county officers and county councillors of all political parties who have given good service to the people of Thurrock over many decades. However, the time has come to recognise that our interests will be better served by the all-purpose authority based at the civic offices in New road, Grays.
My borough is part of the Thames gateway initiative, which has played an important part in our campaign for unitary status, as was acknowledged by the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I place on record my gratitude to them.
The borough owes a great debt of gratitude to Jimmy Aberdein, who was for many years leader of the council and fought hard for unitary status. I thank the existing leader, Andy Smith, who was supported by the Conservative opposition leader Ray Andrews, by Graham Thomas, the secretary of Thurrock Industries Association, and by John Vesey who, in addition to his involvement with the association, is chairman of Thameside Community Healthcare NHS trust. They did much to buttress our campaign for unitary status. There has been a pulling together in Thurrock—a municipal pride—that is reflected in the order. It has been immensely popular and much demanded, despite the claptrap of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel).
My borough has some of the highest indices of deprivation in Essex. Unhappily, its health is among the poorest and there is high unemployment. However, we also have a lot going for us. We are in the Thames gateway and we have the last part of the working port of London, the port of Tilbury. We have a vibrant retail sector, most of which is described as Lakeside, although West Thurrock retail park is much larger than that. We occupy a strategic position on the M25 and on the channel tunnel rail route. In addition to our river frontage, we have an attractive green belt area. That all reflects the corporate identity of our proud borough.
I share my borough with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who on other occasions has been kind enough to mention my name when I have been unable to attend the Chamber. I want to acknowledge that we share the representation of the borough. She and I have a large, attractive green-belt area in our constituencies, including some very attractive Elizabethan listed buildings and the nice village of Fobbing, with its historical association with Wat Tyler and the peasants' revolt.
Dickens and Conrad wrote in the borough and the highlanders who suffered immense defeat 250 years ago at Culloden were incarcerated at Tilbury fort. The borough is rich in history. My borough council and the people of Thurrock wish to exploit the great enterprises which are developing on the river frontage and our historical associations and to put the borough very much on the map. We can do that by having unitary status and working with other statutory agencies such as health trusts and health authorities, and with industry, to create a better quality of life in the borough.
Thurrock is a vibrant borough. It has a good record of local government administration, independently audited by the Audit Commission. I know that it is held in high regard by officials within the Department of the Environment. Contrary to his better judgment, even the Secretary of State might give nodding acknowledgment to the great stewardship of Thurrock borough council by councillors of all parties over many years and the vibrant way in which it is run now. It is working with other boroughs along the river frontage and with the Department of the Environment to make a great success of the Thames gateway initiative.
It is a pity that the legislation which gave rise to these orders was flawed. That is not the fault of the current Secretary of State or his deputy. The now Deputy Prime Minister botched the original legislation. One thing on which we are all agreed is that there should have been greater scope for more unitary authorities around the country. As has already been said, it is perverse that Norwich has not been given unitary status. It is a great pity. I look forward to the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is on the Treasury Bench and gives proud cities and boroughs the opportunity once more to enjoy the unitary status to which they are entitled.
Time is desperately short. It is a great shame that the Government let us down by not making more time available. I conclude by welcoming the orders. I hope that the House will accept them unanimously.

Mr. James Couchman: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) in her place. She and I will share the Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which proposes to dissolve Gillingham borough council and Rochester upon Medway city council and to create a new unitary authority to provide the full range of services presently provided by the two district councils and Kent county council.
This has been a contentious issue in my constituency for far too long. It has been a matter not only of contention but of sadness and bitterness for friends from the same party serving on district and county councils who have found themselves on opposite sides of the argument, and for Members of Parliament such as myself who, having stood up to be counted on one or other side of the argument, have lost friends and supporters who took a contrary view.
Change in the way in which we govern local services is rarely popular; we are all conservative with a small "c". I have been consistent in supporting the proposal to create a single tier of local government for Gillingham,

Rainham, Chatham, Rochester and Strood, which together have a population of about 250,000. I gave evidence to the first Local Government Commission for England and expressed my support for a unitary authority. That was in line with the support then given to the proposals by both district councils, but against the stance adopted, understandably, by the county council, which was fighting for its survival.
I confirmed to the second Local Government Commission chaired by Sir David Cooksey, which was acting on the Secretary of State's requirement to review some of the final recommendations, that I was consistent in my support for a single authority, despite Gillingham borough council—reflecting the new overall control by Liberal Democrat councillors—having done a complete about-face in its support for such a single authority. Gillingham's Conservative and Labour councillors remain in favour of a unitary authority, as do councillors from all three parties on the city council. The reasons why I expressed support for a single authority to the first commission remain as strong now as they were then.
I served as a councillor on Bexley borough council from 1974 to 1982. The outer London boroughs, despite the unwelcome interference of the then Greater London council, were virtually and are now actually unitary authorities, providing all those services, apart from police and fire services, which are provided by the district and county councils outside London. Bexley was an excellent council in those years, providing first-class schools, social services, housing, roads and civic amenities. It was a viable entity serving the population that it did. It still is viable and is respected for its innovative services. Bexley came out of Kent county council in 1964 and its inheritance from Kent county council was pretty threadbare.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred rightly to the geographical integrity of the Medway towns and to the weak nature of the present boundaries between the city council and Gillingham borough council. I believe that a single-tier council serving Gillingham, Rainham, Rochester, Chatham and Strood can be as viable as Bexley borough council, on which I served. Decisions will be taken by people living in those towns rather than people who live from Dartford to Dover and Maidstone to Margate.
The constituent parts of Kent are quite different. The problems and opportunities which confront the Weald or even east Kent are different from those that affect north Kent. Kent in my view is three counties—east Kent, north Kent and what I am pleased to call posh Kent. The council has not always realised that.
Some people have suggested that Gillingham will become submerged in Rochester. I do not believe that for one moment. The pivot for the Medway towns in future is likely to be where it has always been. The former royal naval base and Chatham dockyard, now Chatham Maritime, is where the development is taking place for the towns. Gillingham's business developments, both in Chatham Maritime and the business park, together with its football club, which achieved promotion last year, Hempstead Valley shopping centre and even Gillingham's unique connection with the Japanese mean that Gillingham will remain its own town. However, I believe that Gillingham will remain in Kent for postal purposes


and for Kent's heritage and sporting traditions, just as 30 years on Bromley and Bexley remain part of Kent, if not of Kent county council.

Dame Peggy Fenner: It is most kind of my hon. Friend to allow me this interjection. I should like to correct the assertion made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that the order was not a democratic response to the people of Rochester. Five Liberal members of the local authority joined the members of other parties in support of the proposal for a unitary authority. I am sure that the logic of the rest of his speech, little though it was, would count a population of almost 250,000 as large enough to have one authority.
There is one particular burning issue that I wish to raise and about which I wish to be reassured. Article 7 makes provision in respect of the Medway towns specifically for minerals and waste policies. I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that that includes the minerals and waste policies—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but that was a very long intervention.

Mr. Couchman: I am sure that my hon. Friend has made her point and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard her. I agree with her contention about the democratic nature of the arrangements. There is a huge irony about the fact that Gillingham Liberals are now against the proposal. The leader of the Gillingham Liberals proposed to the Association of District Councils in Kent that the whole of Kent should be made into unitary authorities, but of course, like other Liberals, he reserves his right to change his view from time to time. I suspect that he may have realised that a unitary authority for the Medway towns would not be dominated by Liberal councillors. That may explain his change of mind.
My hon. Friend is right about the democratic nature of the proposal. The hon. Member for Newbury made great play of the commission's consultation exercise. The commission sent out 650,000 leaflets detailing four options. One in 13 of those many leaflets was returned to the commission—that is about 50,000, a number not unadjacent to the number of people who work for Kent county council and who would have had a heavy vested interest in its retention and maintaining the status quo.
In Gillingham, fewer than 3,000 leaflets were returned out of a population of 96,000. Some 75 per cent. of those were in favour of retaining the status quo—two thirds of the 96,000. People tend to write in if they are against rather than in favour of something. It could therefore be suggested that almost 94,000 of Gillingham's population supported, or did not mind, the concept of unitary status.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) also made much of the somewhat bizarre MORI poll that was conducted by the commission. I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman's comments on that subject; I think that we have yet to reach the parlous state where legislation is based on opinion polls.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been criticised for inviting a second commission to review the final recommendations of the first commission. He has

done so for consistency throughout the country; he made that clear in his statement to the House when he set up the second commission, and I support him in that decision.
Throughout a difficult period of controversy, I have tried to respect the opinions of all those who have taken an opposite view. I have been consistent in my support for the proposal, which I believe will result in the best local governance for Gillingham and Rochester, through a time of great change and regeneration, into the 21st century. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggested, no one can say whether it will lead to a higher or lower council tax. That will depend on a number of complex resolutions about support grant, standard spending assessment and the residual debt—I mentioned that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as we are worried about the possibility of asset stripping by the existing authorities. The council tax level will also depend on those who are elected to the new, single-tier authorities. I shall not add my guesstimate to those of the soothsayers who have been so eloquent in their guesses as to whether it will be an expensive option.
I have read the order carefully and there are some points on which I would like my right hon. Friend's guidance. Article 5 sets up a new county of the Medway towns, but without a county council. I presume that that is to allow the transfer of powers and duties from Kent to the new unitary authority. But flowing from that, what are the ramifications for policing the area of the new county and what implications will article 6 have for fire services? Am I right to assume that the postal address will remain Kent, as it does for Bromley and Bexley some 30 years on? Who will represent Her Majesty as Lord Lieutenant? Will it be Lord Kingsdown, who has done such a splendid job in Kent for so long?
Much of Kent's history, particularly its military history, is bound up with the Medway towns—the royal naval base, formerly the royal marines and, to this day, the Royal School of Military Engineering and the headquarters of the Royal Engineers are in my constituency. The history is inalienable and indivisible, but does my right hon. Friend foresee problems in maintaining Kent, within its present boundaries, as the location of such history when the county of Kent becomes the counties of Kent and the Medway towns? What are the ramifications for sporting qualifications? Those are just some of the questions that suggest themselves to me.
I have spoken for too long. I shall have no difficulty in supporting the Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway)(Structural Change) Order 1996 for I believe that it will ultimately be in the best interests of my constituents and all those who live in the Medway towns. I hope that all concerned—Members, officers and anyone else who is involved in the transition—will now work to make the new council work.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am one of those who represent a constituency that will not be a unitary authority once the orders have been approved—I speak particularly in relation to the eighth order that involves Lancashire.
I do not enthusiastically welcome the provisions being implemented through the orders. The hybrid solution for Lancashire is not the best or the right one. I have always believed in unitary local government. My hon. Friend the


Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was absolutely right when he said that the legislation was flawed as, at the end of the review, not all the country will have unitary local government.
I have been involved in politics and local government in Burnley for well over 30 years. In the old days, Burnley was a county borough; it was extremely successful, although it was one of the smallest in the country at that time. Even now I can still see the historical problems caused by the local government reorganisation of 1973–74. There have been problems with the high school admissions places, particularly at Briercliffe, which had previously been in the county, but was not in the county borough; Padiham was a separate urban district council. As a result of admissions policy and the way in which education systems were developed all those years ago, the schools were not in the right places for the children to attend. Owing to lack of money, those problems have still not been solved, and they cause considerable problems for many people.
When people look at their council tax bill they will see that more than 80 per cent. of it goes to the county council. Six county councillors represent Burnley. Less than 20 per cent. of business is dealt with at borough council level, where we have 48 councillors. We do not believe that that is democratic.
I am not one of those who attack Lancashire county council. I believe that it has done an extremely good job in many ways. But two-tier local government is not the best form of local government. Unitary authorities can better represent people's needs; people understand where to go with their problems. My heart often tells me that Burnley should be a unitary authority in its own right. I recognise that it is probably too small and we need to join with other authorities. I do not blame John Banham alone for the mess that we are in, nor do I solely blame the Secretary of State responsible for the legislation—there were failures on the part of county councils and local people who failed to discuss the matter. However, the current form is not the best one.
If the House divides, I have no intention of voting against any of the orders. Burnley borough council and I share the view that enough time has elapsed: Blackburn and Blackpool should attain unitary status. We wish them well and we hope that the system will succeed. Lancashire county council has a responsibility to ensure that the transmission goes smoothly and that it works. It must recognise that it will bring financial and service problems for the rest of Lancashire. Lancashire and the 12 other districts that will remain as non-unitary authorities should get together to ensure that service is better delivered until, I hope, a further local government reorganisation tackles the problems that remain in Lancashire and other parts of the country without unitary authorities.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made some wide, inaccurate comments and he has been roundly criticised in the House for the inaccuracy of some of his supposed statistics. He was absolutely wrong when he said that only one Conservative Member of Parliament was opposed to the order. I regret that the other Member who represents Shropshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen), who is as opposed to the order

as I am, is not in his place this evening, for family reasons. Although I cannot speak for him, I venture to suggest that he will not disagree with the burden of my argument. I have little doubt that, if the House were to divide on the issue, my right hon. Friend would vote against it, as I would and as would my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), who was formerly the Member for The Wreckin.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was scathing about those who "cannot make up their minds". It would have been infinitely preferable had he followed the example of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and acted positively and decisively on local government in England by putting proposals that the House could either vote for or reject, rather than subcontracting consideration of the matter to the local government commission. The first time around, the commission recommended the status quo for Shropshire. That commanded popular support among the majority of my constituents and certainly among my councillors, although I readily concede that it was because they felt that it was the lesser of the two evils on offer.
I support the principle of unitary authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, they end the confusion about who is responsible. I pay tribute to the eloquent defence of that principle made by another Shropshire Member, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott); but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and it is ironic that I, a great advocate of unitary authorities throughout my career in Parliament, will now have the worst of all worlds.
In the rump of Shropshire, we shall now be the smallest county council with less than half the average population. That tiny population will retain two tiers while supporting a system of local government that we did not seek, and picking up the tab for the cost of a reorganisation that we did not want. We shall be extremely disadvantaged in terms of our standard spending assessment. The Wrekin's share of the county council budget is slightly less than the SSA, but the new Shropshire share will be significantly above the SSA.
I make an impassioned plea to the Secretary of State that, when he calculates the next revenue support grant settlement, he looks seriously at the sparsity factor. Unless it is adjusted to take account of the unique difficulties of sparsely populated areas such as the rump of Shropshire, we shall be in an extremely difficult financial position.

Mr. Gummer: I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) that I shall look carefully at the sparsity factor in the two counties that they represent and elsewhere.
It was not I who decided that England should be dealt with differently from Wales or Scotland. The House passed legislation, which I have followed. It was not open to me to take the steps that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow wanted.

Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, not only for that clarification but for his undertaking to look at the sparsity factor.
May I continue the point about the local government review? The local government commission is unelected and unaccountable and does not have the democratic


legitimacy of Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen) and I regret that a greater attempt was not made to consult us on those important matters. I very much regret the decision that has been reached and the manner in which it has been reached. I take this opportunity to repeat the plea that I made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a moment ago about the sparsity factor because, unless he can ensure that the financial consequences of the review are fully reflected in future SSA calculations and RSG settlements, there will be great unhappiness in the county of Shropshire.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance. Shropshire Members of Parliament and county councillors will provide him with as much information as possible or necessary to justify the case that we shall undoubtedly present to him.

Mr. David Jamieson: It is a curious and happy coincidence that, whenever I am fortunate enough to be called to speak on the Floor of the House on issues concerning Plymouth, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair. I shall make my comments brief this evening, mainly because the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) took a fifth of the time available. I assure him that he spoke not for the rest of us but instead of the rest of us. He may reflect on why we do not have Liberal Democrats on Plymouth city council.
I am pleased to say a few words in favour of order No. 3 on unitary status for Plymouth and Torbay. The issue has united Plymouth. Plymouth has a proud history of serving its local people and of serving the nation through the Royal Navy. The people of the city have been served since the beginning of the century, when the three towns of Devonport, Stonehouse and Plymouth came together. But in 1974. many people felt extremely bitter that responsibilities, particularly for education and social services, were taken away from Plymouth and moved 40 miles down the road to Exeter, which is half the size of Plymouth. That has had a serious psychological effect on how people regard their city.
I welcome the changes, which present a challenge to Plymouth to do better. It is a testimony to the excellent officers and the councillors of various parties that have served us over the years that Devon has served us well as an education authority, but that lays down a challenge to us to do better in the future. Moreover, it is a testimony to Devon county council that only seven of the 500 schools have gone grant maintained.
I also welcome the order for Torbay. However, it leaves Exeter in an awkward position, as it deserves unitary status. It also leaves the rest of Devon in a difficult position with the two-tier system that remains. Although I am pleased that the decision has been made, many of us in Plymouth were disappointed about the year's delay in putting the order through Parliament. However good local government is, it depends on good local government officers, and their loyalty is not enhanced by uncertainty. The delay in the reorganisation has created uncertainty. People need to know what will happen to their jobs in the future if they are to deliver high-quality local services.

However, I am glad that we have now reached the point at which reorganisation will go ahead. I applaud those officers who have been working hard to prepare for the changes on Devon and Plymouth councils over the past two years while all that uncertainty has existed.
We can now look forward with confidence to the future. Services to the people are best delivered near to the people at the lowest possible level. Education and social services will now be delivered by the city of Plymouth rather than to our neighbour down the road, Exeter. Plymouth has many fine schools, both primary schools and, since reorganisation in the late 1980s, community colleges; indeed, we now have some of the best community colleges in the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): And grammar schools.

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman mouthed the words "grammar schools" to me. I remind him that, some years ago, when he was a member of the Tory city council, the Conservative county council closed six grammar schools in Plymouth.
I shall not detain the House, except to say that the city has been served by excellent officers and councillors over the years. In particular, I pay tribute to the current leader of the council, Councillor John Ingham—a local man of understanding and vision. He has the respect of the local community. We can all look forward to the elections next year with confidence. This is truly a challenge for the councillors, for the officers and for the people of Plymouth.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I did not anticipate that I would speak in this debate whole-heartedly in support of the comments of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, and so profoundly in disagreement with the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)—the House never fails to contribute to my education. In terms of this playing into the hands of the Liberal Democrats and allowing them to concentrate their fire, I wish that the hon. Member for Newbury had asked the two Liberal members of the council in Nottingham what their advice might be. I suggest that it would have been that their Front Benchers could best help if they did not concentrate their fire on their own troops, who support the change.
I welcome this long overdue change. Nottingham is the largest city in England that is currently administered under a two-tier system of local government, and it has been in the pipeline of review and re-review longer than any other city. It would be a travesty if hon. Members did not understand that this change of status is in the interests of a devolved system of local government, and of restoring the credibility and value of local government. Nottingham hopes to lead the way in showing what devolved local government can do.
Yesterday, the House decided to return the stone of destiny to Scotland. It is entirely appropriate that today the House will, I hope, decide to return the seat of authority to a unitary council in Nottingham. In Nottingham, the city council has already established the momentum to provide better co-ordination of its services


and to guarantee local people a more open and accountable system of local government. I hope that the change to unitary status will allow it to deliver that in ways that the public can understand. As someone who served as a county councillor for a city ward for eight years, I know that local people do not understand the difference between the two separate authorities. I hope that the basis of that misunderstanding can be swiftly removed when the change is brought about.
I urge those on the Front Benches—who have co-operated on this issue—to look more widely at the challenge that they are now posing to devolved and unitary local government in the years ahead. I hope that they will listen to the calls of local authorities which have said that it is about time we got rid of the doctrine of ultra vires. I hope that they will also look at local government in other parts of Europe, where local authorities are assumed to have powers of general competence. I hope that they will look at models in Scandinavia, where local authorities are deemed to be able to function as municipal enterprises. These are the challenges that local government will have to face in the decades to come if they are to respond to the demands of their local population.
I pay tribute to the leader of Nottingham council, Graham Chapman, and to the other councillors who have contributed to the pressure for reorganisation and the restoration of unitary status to Nottingham. I also pay tribute to the local authority staff—both the city and the county—for working towards the transfer process. I am sure that all hon. Members would urge the two local authorities involved to work constructively to provide a seamless transfer of front-line public services to that unitary authority—no one will benefit if that does not occur.
This should not be dismissed as an undesirable change; it should be seen as a change that is long overdue. The change will be welcomed by the people in Nottingham, whose arguments were not necessarily about unitary status but about whether the boundaries of a redefined Nottingham should be enlarged—we may or may not return to that issue in the future.
I welcome these changes. If we can get the local authorities to work in harmony with the order—which will, I hope be passed tonight—we will ensure that the city that is the "Queen of the Midlands" then has the rightful throne restored, from which it can reign.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for not being present in the Chamber earlier.
I shall address the concerns of a few of my constituents in relation to motion No. 4 on the Order Paper—the changes to the boundaries between Colchester and Tendring in my constituency. The proposal to move Dene Park in Wythenhoe from the district of Tendring into the borough of Colchester, with the rest of Wythenhoe, is supported in Wythenhoe and in the borough and the district concerned.
The problem concerns two roads—Keeler's lane and Alresford road—which are just outside Wythenhoe. During the consultation, they were considered to be part of Dene Park, so when the residents were asked whether they wanted Dene Park to be transferred they assented

because they did not consider themselves to be in Dene Park. When they were transferred out of the district of Tendring and into the borough of Colchester, they expressed concern. Unfortunately, that concern was expressed to me too late in the process for the boundaries to be altered and for the order to be changed.
I fully understand the restraints that Ministers face in this respect. However, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to record for posterity that, when these matters are considered again, the residents of these two roads would very much like to be taken back into the Tendring district. The Conservative party believes deeply in there being authorities in which people feel they belong. Although this is a minor matter in the scheme of things, these people feel slighted by what has happened. We must do our best to restore order in this matter next time it is considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the draft Cheshire (Boroughs of Halton and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 17.

Division No. 170]
[7.07 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Allen, Graham
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dobson, Frank


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brazier, Julian
Fishburn, Dudley


Bright Sir Graham
Flynn, Paul


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butler, Peter
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gardiner, Sir George


Cash, William
Garnier, Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gillan, Cheryl


Clappison, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Gorst, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Congdon, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pickles, Eric


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L


Grylls, Sir Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Powell, William (Corby)


Hall, Mike
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hawksley, Warren
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)


Heald, Oliver
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hendry, Charles
Sackville, Tom


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Horam, John
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sims, Sir Roger


Jack, Michael
Speed, Sir Keith


Jamieson, David
Spellar, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Spink, Dr Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sproat, Iain


Kirkhope, Timothy
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knapman, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Straw, Jack


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Streeter, Gary


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sweeney, Walter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sykes, John


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lord, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Luff, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


MacKay, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Mackinlay, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Malone, Gerald
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Vaz, Keith


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Meale, Alan
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Walden, George


Merchant, Piers
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Wells, Bowen


Moate, Sir Roger
Whittingdale, John


Nelson, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Neubert, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wood, Timothy


Norris, Steve
Yeo, Tim


Ottaway, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Page, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Mr. Sebastian Coe and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Pawsey, James





NOES


Alton, David
Maclennan, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Rendel, David


Chidgey, David
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harvey, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Resolved,
That the draft Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Resolved,
That the draft Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Resolved,
That the draft Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Shropshire (District of The Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 17.

Division No. 171]
[7.19 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Dewar, Donald


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dobson, Frank


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Allen, Graham
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Forman, Nigel


Booth, Hartley
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowis, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Sir Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorst, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butler, Peter
Grocott, Bruce


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cash, William
Hall, Mike


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hayes, Jerry


Coe, Sebastian
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Congdon, David
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew






Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Tom


Jamieson, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jenkin, Bernard
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Simpson, Alan


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Sir Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skinner, Dennis


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spellar, John


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr. Robert


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Mackinlay, Andrew
Straw, Jack


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Vaz, Keith


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Willetts, David


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pike, Peter L
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rathbone, Tim



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)





NOES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maclennan, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Chidgey, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gill, Christopher
Tyler, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Hawksley, Warren
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool)(Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Motion made, and question put,
That the draft Kent (Boroughs of Gillingham and City of Roschester upon Medway)(Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.⁁[Mr. Brandreth.]

The House divided:  Ayes 179, Noes 15.

Division No. 172]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Grocott, Bruce


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Allen, Graham
Hall, Mike


Amess, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arbuthnot, James
Hawkins, Nick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hawksley, Warren


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Hayes, Jerry


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heald, Oliver


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Hendry, Charles


Bates, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Bellingham, Henry
Horam, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Booth, Hartley
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hunter, Andrew


Bowis, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Jack, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jenkin, Bernard


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jessel, Toby


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Burns, Simon
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Butler, Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Butterfill, John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Cash, William
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lidington, David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clappison, James
Luff, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Coe, Sebastian
MacKay, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Mackinlay, Andrew


Congdon, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Mans, Keith


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Meale, Alan


Couchman, James
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Devlin, Tim
Merchant, Piers


Dobson, Frank
Mills, Iain


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Duncan, Alan
Moate, Sir Roger


Duncan Smith, Iain
Nelson, Anthony


Durant, Sir Anthony
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Elletson, Harold
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Norris, Steve


Faber, David
Ottaway, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Page, Richard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Flynn, Paul
Pawsey, James


Forman, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pike, Peter L


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


French, Douglas
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Galloway, George
Rathbone, Tim


Gardiner, Sir George
Robathan, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gill, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gillan, Cheryl
Sackville, Tom


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Gorst, Sir John
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shaw, Sr Giles (Pudsey)






Shersby, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Simpson, Alan
Trend, Michael


Sims, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skinner, Dennis
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spearing, Nigel
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spellar.John
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wells, Bowen


Sproat, Iain
Whittingdale, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Widdecombe, Ann


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Straw, Jack
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





NOES


Alton, David
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Chidgey, David
Rendel, David


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harvey, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Berkshire (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

PETITION

Central Railway

Mr. David Lidington: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are objecting to the proposed freight railway system planned by Central Railway. The petition has been signed by constituents living in Bradenham—the boyhood home of my predecessor, Benjamin Disraeli—Bledlow Ridge, Saunderton, Horsenden, Lacey Green, Loosley Row, Princes Risborough, Longwick and Ilmer.

The petition has my full support, and declares:
the proposal of Central Railway is unacceptable in that the environmental damage it will cause would far outweigh any claimed benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons rejects the Central Railway Application for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

To lie upon the Table.

Roads (West Wiltshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. David Faber: I am grateful to have the opportunity today for an Adjournment debate—rather earlier than normal—on the subject of the A36. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and other hon. Members that I shall not detain the House until 10 o'clock tonight, but I hope that they will forgive me if I take the opportunity to say a few words about the A36 improvement east of Bath to Beckington, which the Government have planned.
I should say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham)—who, sadly, are unable to be here for this debate—endorse the majority of the views that I shall express. I shall explain why they do so in the course of my remarks.
The Government's plans to upgrade the A36 from east of Bath to Beckington date back probably to 1976, when a study known as the Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick report first introduced the idea of the A36 corridor. The scheme was entered into the trunk road programme in 1989 and went out to public consultation in 1992, and the preferred route was announced in November 1994.
In the four years that I have been the Member of Parliament representing my constituency, few issues have so dominated local news as the proposed building of this road. It has drawn almost universal opposition from local residents, from the district council, from myself, from Caroline Jackson—our Member of the European Parliament—and from many others.
I pay tribute to local groups—rather than to the more national lobby groups, which have sometimes failed to understand the real reasons and principles behind the issue—especially in Bradford-on-Avon. They have expressed their opposition in a sensible and calm manner, often basing it on sound scientific reasoning and on research that they have carried out themselves. At times, they have appeared better informed than some members of the Highways Agency who replied to their letters.
Initially, support for the road was high in Bradford-on-Avon, as it was perceived as providing a much-needed bypass for the town. It soon became clear, however, that the road's scale would mean that there would be little relief for local traffic, and that it could possibly expose the town to increased traffic noise and traffic pollution. Indeed, the road level would have needed to be raised in one area to cross over the Kennet and Avon canal, which would have made it clearly visible in many parts of the town.
The route was also opposed on the grounds that it offered little help to business or industry in west Wiltshire, a subject to which I shall return to in rather more detail shortly. The road has been opposed by Bath city council, too, on the grounds that it offers little or no relief to that city.
The road is fraught with environmental danger. It is all new build to dual carriageway standard, and it will pass through large tracts of unspoiled countryside, most notably the Limpley Stoke and Avon valleys.
Last November, my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads announced that the scheme was to be downgraded in the roads programme, presumably because of the escalating cost of the new road, which is now put at between £80 million and £100 million. That decision has been warmly welcomed by local people.
I went with our MEP, Caroline Jackson, to see my hon. Friend the Minister, when, as I am sure he will recall, we discussed possible alternatives to the road, including a single-lane carriageway. I should be grateful if he will tell us today a little more about whether that possiblity has been examined further.
I must tell my hon. Friend that we should like to hear today that a decision has been reached to abandon the road completely. Many local people believe that the A36 could easily be upgraded, in part, on line, and possibly linked to a smaller inner bypass for Bradford-on-Avon itself.
While I acknowledge that it is now highly unlikely that the road will ever be built as it is currently planned, it is still very much a line on a map. That has great significance for many people, particularly for those along the route who are still suffering the effects of blight on their homes.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is not the Minister with specific responsiblity for blight, but he may be aware from his background briefing of the cases of one or two of my constituents. I have been in contact with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London about the severe diminution in value of one or two of the properties along the route, and I hope that those cases will be dealt with more sympathetically in future.
Suspicion has also been raised recently by the publication of a preferred route for the small southern section of the road south of Rode. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us a little more about the plans for that tonight.
Fortunately for the people of west Wiltshire and for the Department of Transport, there is an alternative to building the road. In April 1994, Caroline Jackson and I launched our campaign for upgrading the A350. We have been supported throughout by the district council and by local business, particularly by the West Wiltshire Association of Chambers of Commerce. I pay tribute to the work that the association has put into the project.
I am delighted to say that the plan has won not only enthusiastic support, but active backing and encouragement from Wiltshire county council.

Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the considerable concerns in my constituency about the many vehicles looking for a north-south route, which currently must come into the centre of Bath and then out, raising pollution and congestion levels. He is right to say that the A36 uprade is not particularly popular. Is he prepared to add to his list of supporters not only myself, but very many of my constituents, who believe that the upgrading of the A350 would provide the much needed relief for the north-south route?

Mr. Faber: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, first, for the brevity of his intervention in comparison with the earlier intervention of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). Secondly, and more seriously, I am very grateful for his comments.
I said that I do not believe that, as currently planned, the A36 would provide relief for Bath. I shall present some specific ideas shortly for upgrading the A350 from the the M4 at Chippenham down to Warminster. I believe that much of the heavy traffic that uses the M4 and currently looks for alternative routes would use that new route. So I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his support, and I shall certainly ensure that people in west Wiltshire are aware of his and his constituents' support.
The A350 runs south from junction 17 of the M4, at Chippenham, through the economic corridor that comprises the towns in north and west Wiltshire in my constituency. For the purpose of the debate, I am specifically interested in the section of road that runs between the M4 and Warminster, where the A36 subsequently joins the A350, and the two roads continue down to the south coast ports.
For those who live and work in west Wiltshire, the A350 is not just a route running through, as the A36 would do. It is a transport corridor linking towns that already function closely as a single economy. I believe that the case for upgrading the section of road in question can be made on traffic grounds alone.
Using the junction with the M4, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) rightly said, the A350 provides links for west Wiltshire with Swindon and Bristol locally, and further afield with London, south Wales and the west midlands. At present, traffic flows between the M4 and Chippenham run at about 22,000 vehicles a day, and south of Semington, which is just south of Melksham, at 12,000 vehicles a day. North of the M4 and south of Warminster, the flows are only half those levels. For instance, the Warminster bypass takes on average 10,300 vehicles a day.
I hope that those figures will allay the fears of people who live south of Warminster, especially in north Dorset, who fear that the proposals may be aimed at embracing them, too. It is clear that the need for improvement is on the stretch between the M4 and Warminster, both on traffic grounds and on grounds of economic regeneration. The route is now overloaded, with serious congestion at peak hours and bottlenecks at Chippenham, Melksham, Semington, Yarnbrook and Westbury, to name but a few.
Traffic growth in Wiltshire has been above the national average for the past 10 years, and is expected to rise further. Indeed, the county council currently forecasts that traffic volumes will have risen by between 77 and 106 per cent. by the year 2025. In the past three years, there have also been more than 300 accidents involving personal injury on that stretch of road. Unfortunately, I witnessed the aftermath of one especially dreadful accident myself, and I have heard about and received letters about many others.
Given that increase of traffic through our market towns and villages, the case for upgrading can be made on traffic, environmental and safety grounds. In complete contrast to the new-build proposals for the A36, a great deal of the route can be upgraded on line. Where it is necessary to go off line, that will be primarily to build bypasses that go round towns and villages.
I have no doubt that, by taking traffic, especially heavy goods vehicles, away from town centres, those bypasses will reduce congestion. They will bring about a vast improvement in the environment within the towns, both


for residents and for visitors. Congestion, noise and pollution will all be reduced. Above all, there will be fewer appalling accidents on the road.
I mentioned earlier the support of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Devizes. Although his constituency is east of mine, the traffic that builds up in Devizes, as well as in villages such as Seend and even further afield in places such as Marlborough, is a direct result of the inadequacy of the current A350 running from north to south.
Nowhere is the need for upgrading more evident than in the town of Westbury. So I was somewhat surprised to read in my local paper last week that the county councillor for Westbury had said:
I am concerned that any bypass for Westbury might kill the town.
Westbury has more than 30 per cent. of its shops empty, business is being lost and unemployment rising. The road may bring success but the chances of failure are there just as evidently.
I must say that that councillor's experience is totally different from mine. I have been bombarded over the past four years with letters from all parts of the town seeking the long-awaited bypass. Indeed, I rather agree with the comments in a letter that I received yesterday from the chairman of a local parish council:
We who live in Westbury and the surrounding villages are fully aware of the traffic problems that plague our lives.
Westbury town centre is dying. The amount of traffic along the Warminster Road prohibits customers from getting to the shops, and they, like many other shops in the area have closed.
Not only will the new road bring added investment to the area, but it will boost economic regeneration and enable local people to shop and walk in their town within being knocked over, or even, as in some tragic cases, killed.
That brings me to the third and most powerful case for upgrading the route—economic regeneration. I have already paid tribute to the work of the West Wiltshire Association of Chambers of Commerce, and to West Wiltshire district council. Those two organisations have produced a joint document and been instrumental in pushing for the upgrading of the route. The title of their document speaks for itself: "A350—Lifeline for local prosperity". Wiltshire county council has also recently added its support, and it produced its own excellent document this week.
In recent years, the economy of west Wiltshire has been badly affected by recession. In addition, we have seen restructuring in many of our traditional industries, most notably food processing and engineering. Like north Wiltshire, we have also seen contracting affecting some of our important defence and defence-related employment. Historically, some towns may have been over-dependent on one or two large employers, and have suffered accordingly.
Above all, we have been at a crucial disadvantage in attracting new inward investment to replace the lost jobs. Business men and local government officers have numerous stories of would-be investors who have made the trip, but have given up north of Melksham because they simply have not been able to get into the district. Two years ago, we had to watch as Tesco chose to

relocate its Westbury distribution centre in south Wales, largely because of our lack of a road infrastructure—and that is just one example of many.
The Warminster travel-to-work area has an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent., and Trowbridge a rate of 6.4 per cent. I welcome the many new jobs that have been created, but those are still among the highest rates in the county. Chippenham, Trowbridge and Warminster each have a daily net outflux of commuters going to work in Swindon, Bath and Bristol, and the trend is increasing. It has increased threefold since 1981, compared with a county increase of only 58 per cent. As Swindon continues to grow, the net out-commuting will continue, unless the increasing inaccessibility of the area is halted.
In west Wiltshire, we want to enjoy the benefits of economic recovery, as others are doing, so I hope that what I have said about economic regeneration will carry weight with the Minister.
At the outset I mentioned that I warmly welcomed the shift of emphasis in Wiltshire county council, which is now wholly supportive. The council has identified nine distinct sections along the route that need varying degrees of work, much of which can be done on line. Some of the road already exists to a satisfactory standard, and, as I have already said, when work has to go off line, that will be principally for the purpose of building bypasses.
Of those nine sectors, I shall concentrate on three priority areas. The first is the Chippenham western bypass, which has already been partially built, although the results of last November's public inquiry are still awaited. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, a bid was made this year for transport supplementary grant for the road to be completed, but sadly we were unsuccessful. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I hope that my hon. Friend will look favourably on this year's new bid for 1997–98, so that the important first link of the road can be completed.
In addition, I understand that the work is to be the subject of a bid to the newly announced capital challenge scheme. I understand too that the Government office for the south-west has encouraged Wiltshire county council to bid. Despite some limitation on the scale of the regional allocation, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would pass on to our colleagues at the Department of the Environment the message about the support of both my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and myself for the bid.
Secondly, the Semington-Melksham link, as it has become known, is included in the draft structure plan, and went out to public consultation in March. The results of that consultation are currently being analysed, and that section is regarded as the second most important priority after Chippenham.
Thirdly, as I have already said, Westbury's traffic problems require long-term solution by means of a bypass. In the longer term, three possible routes are being considered. In the short term, to help with economic regeneration, Wiltshire county council has planned the so-called Hawkeridge link scheme, to provide improved access to the popular and successful west Wiltshire trading estate.
The Hawkeridge link is the immediate priority for the county council, which is also currently in discussion with the Government office for the south-west in preparation


for a bid to the single regeneration fund in an effort to regenerate the town. Again, I put on the record my support for that bid.
Finally, I shall examine one other possible source of funding—the private finance initiative. In west Wiltshire, we are already beneficiaries of the PFI. We have had much-needed improvements to the A36 south of Warminster, between Heytesbury and Codford, which have been carried out as a DBFO—design, build, finance, operate—initiative. The work will be carried out well ahead of the schedule that was previously hoped for.
May I push my hon. Friend to say whether, at any time in the near future, we are likely to see a relaxation in the rules governing the PFI and local authorities? I believe that it is time for the Government to give the go-ahead for local authority schemes, as well as trunk road projects, to benefit from the PFI.
Wiltshire county council's document rightly highlights the possibility of attracting private finance under a DBFO scheme for all or part of the A350. The council has an ambitious proposal for a single PFI scheme to complete the building of the Chippenham bypass, to design and build the Semington-Melksham link, and eventually to design and build the Westbury bypass too. It may sound optimistic to talk about carrying out such an ambitious project all in one go. It may seem a long way away tonight, but we need the go-ahead in due course from my hon. Friend, so that we can consider the possibility.
The Government have already moved a long way in their reassessment of the A36, and I encourage my hon. Friend to go that little bit further this evening. The economies of north and west Wiltshire need to be encouraged if we are to exploit the many opportunities that are there for us. One of the most important ways of exploiting those opportunities and of attracting the inward investment we need is to improve the current road network. I hope that my hon. Friend will indicate his support this evening for the plans that I have laid out to upgrade the A350 between the M4 and Warminster.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) for the opportunity to discuss the important subject of road improvements in Wiltshire, and to have the opportunity to explain my Department's strategy.
It has long been recognised that the road connections between the south coast ports—principally Southampton and Portsmouth—and the M4 require improvements so that they may cope adequately with the volume of traffic, particularly heavy goods traffic, that use them. Completion of the M4 and M5 motorways in the early 1970s led to a reassessment of the role of the old established trunk roads in the area, and many were de-trunked as a result. However, studies in the 1970s concluded that the most satisfactory way of meeting road transport needs on the north-south axis would be to make improvements along the general line of the A36-A46 corridor.
The execution of that strategy is already well advanced, with a number of bypasses already built. Beckington, Warminster, Codford and Heytesbury already have bypasses, and I shall have the pleasure of opening the

Batheaston and Swainswick bypass next week, which will be a further important step towards achieving our long-term strategy.
We intend to pursue other schemes to improve further that corridor, including the Salisbury bypass, subject, of course, to completion of its statutory procedures—the inspector's report is currently being considered by my right hon. Friends the Secretarys of State for the Environment and for Transport—and the Codford and Heytesbury Improvement, to which my hon. Friend referred.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, in the review last year, we placed the east of Bath to Beckington scheme, as well as the Wylye to Codford Improvement, in our longer-term programme. We will bring those schemes forward into the main programme when funding permits.
The east of Bath to Beckington scheme will bypass Bradford on Avon and link the Batheaston and Beckington bypasses. I note what my hon. Friend said about its cost and environmental effects. Indeed, I looked at the scheme carefully during the review, and clearly there are some difficult environmental issues to be addressed. The problem is that the existing route—the other side of the river valley—also has significant and severe environmental impacts. The current position is that the line of the route is protected. I felt it right to ensure that the preferred route was clear, to minimise the blighting effects that would otherwise arise.
However, the scale of the road can be considered again before it is brought into the main programme. As I cannot at this stage predict when we will have made enough progress with the existing main programme to consider advancing schemes that are in the long-term programme at present, it would be premature to make any firm decisions on the scale of the road. I know that my hon. Friend has argued persuasively that a smaller scale than that proposed might well reduce some of the environmental concerns that he and others had adduced.
From time to time, the proposition has been made that the A350 should be designated as the main north-south route in this part of the world for long-distance through traffic, and should therefore be improved instead of the A46 and A36. That was debated most recently at the public inquiry into the Batheaston and Swainswick bypass.
In his report on that inquiry, the inspector concluded that, since much of the traffic on the A36 and A46 had an origin or destination local to Bath, it could not be expected to use an improved A350. Therefore, north-south traffic capacity on the A36-A46 corridor would have to be increased regardless of what happened to the A350.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has a duty to keep the trunk road network under review, and we look regularly at both the network of trunk roads and motorways and the schemes in the programme to provide improvements. We have looked on a number of occasions at whether the current network is the right one. I have to say that, thus far, we have concluded that the balance remains in favour of the A46-A36 as the trunk road. We therefore have no plans to alter the shape of the trunk road network in Wiltshire at present.
I now come to my hon. Friend's questions about how the A350 to the north of Warminster might be improved. I have already said that we do not intend to alter the status of the A350 to a trunk road, so plans to improve it will


remain a matter for the local highway authority, Wiltshire county council. I recognise, of course, that the improvements of which he has spoken would be expensive, and that the local authority will be looking to central Government to provide at least some of the funding.
I should also say that the county council is already aware of the importance of obtaining whatever funding might be available from developers that stand to gain from any improvements. That fits in clearly with what my hon. Friend said about the potential of this road to unlock economic regeneration opportunities. That has already been amply demonstrated at Chippenham, where a substantial start has already been made on its bypass, with funding provided by developers.
The main source of capital funding from central Government for local authority road schemes is, of course, transport supplementary grant. Over the years, a large number of important road improvements throughout England have been funded in this way. Local authorities have been able to construct bypasses and improvements of roads that are of local strategic importance, using TSG funding.
There are many examples of that in the south-west. My hon. Friend will be aware that TSG has already funded some improvements to the A350—the Biss Bottom bypass north of Warminster, for example, which was opened in 1993, and further south the East Knoyle bypass, which was completed and opened to traffic quite recently. He mentioned a number of other schemes that the county council is planning.
The Chippenham bypass was the county council's top priority bid for TSG in the last bidding round. However, in view of the fact that the scheme had not completed its statutory planning procedures, and resources for TSG were extremely hard-pressed, we were not able to allocate any of the scarce funds to it on that occasion. The county council may wish to seek TSG funding for the Chippenham bypass again this year, and we will consider any such bid very carefully.
I should stress, however, that TSG funding is limited, and local authorities must recognise that few schemes will be accepted for expenditure each year. A very expensive strategy to upgrade a substantial length of road such as the A350 must therefore be regarded as a long-term project if it is to be funded solely from TSG.
My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of funding being secured from alternative sources, such as the capital challenge fund, the single regeneration budget and the private finance initiative. He may be aware that the Government announced on 15 May that we are proceeding with proposals for a pilot capital challenge fund to explore how best the challenge concept can be brought to bear on the determination of the distribution of Government support for local authorities' capital spending.
The aim of the pilot scheme is to test the applicability of the challenge approach to any and all aspects of capital spending across all services for which local authorities are responsible. Authorities have been invited to bid for their highest capital spending priorities drawn from their overall capital spending plans. Some £600 million is available to local authorities in England under the pilot scheme.
It is therefore open to Wiltshire's local authorities to decide whether to submit bids under the capital challenge pilot scheme for capital funding to build improvements to the A350. If they do, Ministers will, of course, consider any such bids very carefully. Local authorities have also been provided with guidance on the submission of bids, and they are encouraged to discuss any prospective bids with officials from the Government office.
My hon. Friend asked whether the single regeneration budget might be a source from which funding could be sought for improvements to the A350. He will probably be aware that the single regeneration budget provides flexible support for local initiatives by bringing together existing regeneration programmes from five Government Departments.
That does not, however, include my own, and I can only advise Wiltshire county council to discuss any plans it might have to bid for money from the single regeneration budget challenge fund with officials from the Government office for the south-west as soon as possible. I am aware that the county council has submitted the outline of a bid in respect of Westbury, which includes the construction of a link road to the A350, but not an improvement of the A350 itself.
Turning to the question of private finance, my hon Friend may already be aware that the Government intend to amend the capital finance regulations to remove obstacles to local authority private finance schemes. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration intends to consult on possible provisions for capital finance regulations, and will lay them before the House in time for them to come into effect in the autumn. It will then be for the county council to consider whether it should seek to use the new powers for its own design, build, finance and operate deal.
Any local authority seeking to build a road scheme by the private finance route would, of course, still have to obtain the necessary statutory planning and land acquisition powers. My Department is making its considerable expertise in DBFO contracts available to the Department of the Environment to assist in the preparation of any such bids.
Although my hon. Friend will be disappointed that I have not grabbed with alacrity his initial suggestion that I should drop plans for further improvement on the A36-A46 corridor, and adopt the A350 as a trunk road, I hope that I have given him some pointers to ways in which the local highway authority might be able to take forward the improvements that it and my hon. Friend consider would be of value to that area of Wiltshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eight o'clock.